AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have been on the board a few months and have learned quite a bit. I ended up putting an Antenna Craft CCS1233 antenna, http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_disp...p?prod=CCS1233 , a Wineguard AP8700 preamp, http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_disp...p?prod=CCS1233 , and a channel master 9588 rotor. My goal is to receive the Toledo stations 11 and 36 on a continuos basis. For analog it is fine with a little snow sometimes. When I hooked up the system at the end of October it must still have been tropo season because I was picking up all the Toledo, and Detroit digital stations. Sometime in November this ended. I can on occasion pick up channel 66 in Detroit on analog, and still pull all the Toledo stations in analog.


With the transistion (I hope it don't get delayed) coming, I'm wondering if I will be able to pull the digital Toledo stations. I'm hoping that the power will increase, and the analog shut off will help. I kinda doubt this, but have to wait for the shutoff. February is good for me in that it isn't tropo season and I should have stable results. The Google maps TV coverage files show all the Toledo stations digital signals are in my area.


So I'm thinking that I will need a new antenna. Since the lowest channel I care about is channel 8, a DB8 http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?prod=AD-DB8 should work as an all in one solution. I also thought about leaving my current antenna, and getting a DB4 http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?prod=AD-DB4 for UHF.


I have my current antenna on a 3 leg tripod on the peak of my roof. The rotor is attached to the top of the tripod, and I have the antenna on a two foot mast attached to the rotor. We have had many windy days above 60+ MPH, and nothing bad happened, in fact the antenna didn't move much to my surprized. My fear is that if I add another 5 or so pounds on a 5 foot mast, that my tripod isn't sturdy enough.


What are your guys opinions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Looking at your tvfool data, you have two high vhf channels (8 and 10). DB4's and DB8's have worked reasonably well as UHF only antennas. I don't believe that they have high vhf reception. You'll need a combo high vhf/uhf antenna. The Winegard 769x series are well built and have much high gain than your present antenna. I suggest a 7696 antenna.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDRick /forum/post/15552028


Looking at your tvfool data, you have two high vhf channels (8 and 10). DB4's and DB8's have worked reasonably well as UHF only antennas. I don't believe that they have high vhf reception. You'll need a combo high vhf/uhf antenna. The Winegard 769x series are well built and have much high gain than your present antenna. I suggest a 7696 antenna.

Hey Rick, again we agree, and I would suggest his VHFs appear so weak from Toledo upgrading to a 7697 or 7698 would not be crazy, if you can stand the ice and wind loading on that system.


The 7696 Rick suggests would be about the same length and without the low band VHF elements actually be less wind and ice area and over twice the gain (better than 3db).


DB8 is not the antenna you need. It's VHF (7-13) is modest and not good for the distance you need.


Still Toledo is a good distance from you signal strength wise, so good luck. Still the 7696 is a better antenna than what you have.


Also most say Winegard stand up better than AntennaCraft to the elements.


Good luck and please let us know what and how well it worked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDRick /forum/post/15552028


Looking at your tvfool data, you have two high vhf channels (8 and 10). DB4's and DB8's have worked reasonably well as UHF only antennas. I don't believe that they have high vhf reception. You'll need a combo high vhf/uhf antenna. The Winegard 769x series are well built and have much high gain than your present antenna. I suggest a 7696 antenna.

Thanks for the suggestion. That antenna has about twice the gain I have and is 10" shorter, which would allow my current tripod as there would be no added weight.


I saw on the site that the DB4 and 8 is advertised as being able to do well on channels 7-13, but that may not be the case in reality. If I can get 11 after the transition, I may still just goes with a DB 4 or 8, if not then this antenna is a good choice.


As in regards to UHF, does anyone have hands on experience between the 7696 and a DB8?


Thanks for the tips
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDRick /forum/post/15552028


Looking at your tvfool data, you have two high vhf channels (8 and 10). DB4's and DB8's have worked reasonably well as UHF only antennas. I don't believe that they have high vhf reception. You'll need a combo high vhf/uhf antenna. The Winegard 769x series are well built and have much high gain than your present antenna. I suggest a 7696 antenna.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552212


Hey Rick, again we agree, and I would suggest his VHFs appear so weak from Toledo upgrading to a 7697 or 7698 would not be crazy, if you can stand the ice and wind loading on that system.


The 7696 Rick suggests would be about the same length and without the low band VHF elements actually be less wind and ice area and over twice the gain (better than 3db).


DB8 is not the antenna you need. It's VHF (7-13) is modest and not good for the distance you need.


Still Toledo is a good distance from you signal strength wise, so good luck. Still the 7696 is a better antenna than what you have.


Also most say Winegard stand up better than AntennaCraft to the elements.


Good luck and please let us know what and how well it worked.

So it sound like the 7696 is the item...and Piggy you answered the other questions...too bad the post came in while I was typing.....


Now I'm still learning the data from TV Fool, but if I put the coverage maps in Google earth, it shows that the signal coverage for all the Toledo stations are in my area, although they are purple....is the TV Fool data accurate??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
The tvfool data are very good, although there obviously situations that are missed. The purple color is merely telling you that you will have more of challenge than others. If you look at your tvfool data, you'll see many stations listed as two edge which means a more challenging reception situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmadd29 /forum/post/15552282


So it sound like the 7696 is the item...and Piggy you answered the other questions...too bad the post came in while I was typing.....


Now I'm still learning the data from TV Fool, but if I put the coverage maps in Google earth, it shows that the signal coverage for all the Toledo stations are in my area, although they are purple....is the TV Fool data accurate??

TVFool is as good as it gets from doing antenna plots real time on a web site for things in the way like hills, mountains, distance.


It can't and doesn't take into effect buildings, trees in the path. It also doesn't take into account you might be a hot or dead spot for a particular channel very well.


All considered it's the best on the net, period. I don't care for even like to mention antennaweb.org, as it's results hardly ever match the real world.


For me in Florida on flat ground, stations as far as Toledo, I would not even try. But you say you see their analog fine, which should mean you will see their digital.


I don't know of anyone that has tried the 769X series antennas and posted results here. They are somewhat new.


The DB8 is very very well documented on the internet and is NOT the antenna you need. First it's too big, second it's not strong enough for long range VHF like you want.


I would suggest money aside the 78 version would give you the best results, but that is probably too much antenna for a tripod in snow and ice.


An idea. You could find a place (besides the tripod) to point at the Cleveland stations and run a separate coax down to a switch. You would not need an amp on the old antenna pointing at Cleveland is my guess.


Don't try and combine them on the roof, it will cause the Toledo antenna to be weaker. Just an idea to use your old antenna. And the old Antenna pointing at Cleveland would not have to be high. Probably 15 feet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552400



For me in Florida on flat ground, stations as far as Toledo, I would not even try. But you say you see their analog fine, which should mean you will see their digital.

That's interesting, I didn't think 70 miles was that far......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552400


I would suggest money aside the 78 version would give you the best results, but that is probably too much antenna for a tripod in snow and ice.


The money is not an issue at this point the correct antenna to get what I need is. The antenna are not that expensive. My CCS1233 has no issue with snow and ice, we just had about a foot and a half this week, and the is no issue. Why would there be an issue with the 7696?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552400


I would suggest money aside the 78 version would give you the best results, but that is probably too much antenna for a tripod in snow and ice.

78 version? do you mean 76?


I have an up and down roof, and no chimney, what other mount options are there instead of a tripod?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552400


An idea. You could find a place (besides the tripod) to point at the Cleveland stations and run a separate coax down to a switch. You would not need an amp on the old antenna pointing at Cleveland is my guess.

That would be easy to due, and I certainly don't need an amp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552400


Don't try and combine them on the roof, it will cause the Toledo antenna to be weaker. Just an idea to use your old antenna. And the old Antenna pointing at Cleveland would not have to be high. Probably 15 feet.

A one antenna solution would be ideal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDRick /forum/post/15552359


The tvfool data are very good, although there obviously situations that are missed. The purple color is merely telling you that you will have more of challenge than others. If you look at your tvfool data, you'll see many stations listed as two edge which means a more challenging reception situation.

Rick,


Could you explain in laymens terms two edge defraction. My understanding is that it means there are two land ridges between me and the tower so that has to be overcome. I'm still trying to get a grasp on two edge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmadd29 /forum/post/15552554


That's interesting, I didn't think 70 miles was that far......


The money is not an issue at this point the correct antenna to get what I need is. The antenna are not that expensive. My CCS1233 has no issue with snow and ice, we just had about a foot and a half this week, and the is no issue. Why would there be an issue with the 7696?

What you can't see on TVFool are things like (Florida has tiny hills), the transmitter being on a hill and you are on a hill. It does take that in account but not exactly. In Florida, it's almost like you can use nautical curvature of the Earth to determine distance. Anything over 50 miles on a 300m tower is hopeless. 500m tower can stretch that to 60 plus miles.


But if you are going from what they put on antenna ads and boxes, they all exaggerate greatly in my opinion.


No the 7696 is smaller than your current antenna, no issue. I mean going to it's big brothers and sisters. The 7697 or 7698 might be too much wind, snow and ice loading for a tripod. I am not that experienced in OTA antenna problems from snow, and ice. Wind in Florida? lol, you betcha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmadd29 /forum/post/15552554


78 version? do you mean 76?


I have an up and down roof, and no chimney, what other mount options are there instead of a tripod?


That would be easy to due, and I certainly don't need an amp.


A one antenna solution would be ideal.

I meant 7698P oops!


besides a tripod, a Pushup Pole (hard to find these days except shipping one in) will hold more with guys. You could guy your tripod setup if it's not already. If the roof is non-metallic you can keep the antenna low to the roof (5 to 5 1/2 feet is a wavelength at High band VHF).


Guess you don't need the second antenna as you have a rotor. I was thinking a rotorless solution. You could put the old antenna on a 15 ft mast next to the house or 10 ft if it clears the eave and run to a second TV or use when you don't want a rotor.


Mostly just throwing around ideas.


All in all with a rotor, on a tripod, I am afraid to say anything bigger though the the 7696P would be too big. Someone with more experience in snow and ice can add in here please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmadd29 /forum/post/15552624


Rick,


Could you explain in laymens terms two edge defraction. My understanding is that it means there are two land ridges between me and the tower so that has to be overcome. I'm still trying to get a grasp on two edge.

Answering for Rick, that is it, there are say 2 hills between you and the transmit tower. That means it's not line of sight. So the signal has to bend over not one hill but two. This means challenging to most of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552837



Guess you don't need the second antenna as you have a rotor. I was thinking a rotorless solution. You could put the old antenna on a 15 ft mast next to the house or 10 ft if it clears the eave and run to a second TV or use when you don't want a rotor.


Mostly just throwing around ideas.

Actually, I'd take the old antenna and put it on my barn where I have my FM DX rig and use that. I'd probably try to tune using other plans on the net.


I'll find a use for it, even if I gave it away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmadd29 /forum/post/15552915


Actually, I'd take the old antenna and put it on my barn where I have my FM DX rig and use that. I'd probably try to tune using other plans on the net.


I'll find a use for it, even if I gave it away.

It work for FM since it's a wideband VHF. Probably close to the gain of AntennaCrafts small FM antenna, so that might just work out.


One thing these new High VHF (7-13) and U antennas have as an advantage that is not talked about a lot is they don't work well on FM, since there are no elements below 174 MHz.


It so happens and was designed that way that the 2nd harmonic of the FM band falls exactly on VHF High Band TV. This is not too big a problem from natural harmonics as they normally are 3rd harmonics, which puts FM's third harmonic up in the military 2way channels around 300 MHz.


But in an amplifier, the 2nd harmonic can be pretty strong and why the amps have FM traps in them. But also since the new Highband/UHF only antennas don't have elements for FM, it helps reduce any possible FM interference in addition to being a lighter antenna without the big elements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552847


Answering for Rick, that is it, there are say 2 hills between you and the transmit tower. That means it's not line of sight. So the signal has to bend over not one hill but two. This means challenging to most of us.

Thanks Piggie, I was absent from the keyboard...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15553120


It work for FM since it's a wideband VHF. Probably close to the gain of AntennaCrafts small FM antenna, so that might just work out.


One thing these new High VHF (7-13) and U antennas have as an advantage that is not talked about a lot is they don't work well on FM, since there are no elements below 174 MHz.


It so happens and was designed that way that the 2nd harmonic of the FM band falls exactly on VHF High Band TV. This is not too big a problem from natural harmonics as they normally are 3rd harmonics, which puts FM's third harmonic up in the military 2way channels around 300 MHz.


But in an amplifier, the 2nd harmonic can be pretty strong and why the amps have FM traps in them. But also since the new Highband/UHF only antennas don't have elements for FM, it helps reduce any possible FM interference in addition to being a lighter antenna without the big elements.

Which is another plus to getting a new antenna.


I could remove the low VHF on the old antenna, and tune it to the mid of the FM band. I've seen many of the designs and calculations online, so I wouldn't think it'd be that hard, and fun to boot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piggie /forum/post/15552847


Answering for Rick, that is it, there are say 2 hills between you and the transmit tower. That means it's not line of sight. So the signal has to bend over not one hill but two. This means challenging to most of us.

I heard a trick that tilting the antenna up about 10 degrees helps with two edge. Do not if it's true or not. I added about a ten degree angle and can't tell if there is any difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I was looking at another post, and is it possible I have preamp overload with my Wineguard 8700?


Is it possible that my strong LOS stations and over powering the Toledo stations I'm looking to get?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Yes, it is possible that you have pre-amp overload similar to the other thread. You don't have as many strong stations but the input power levels from your highest two stations exceed Holl_ands recommendations for an AP-8700. Pre-amp overload impacts the dynamic range of the pre-amp and can reduce reception of low power stations.


You may want to check out this thread and post your queries there: http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hd...reception.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmadd29 /forum/post/15553246


I heard a trick that tilting the antenna up about 10 degrees helps with two edge. Do not if it's true or not. I added about a ten degree angle and can't tell if there is any difference.

You can experiment with tilt, but in general it's a grab. It is possible you "might" find a spot a little higher in the sky where there is more signal. It is possible. I have never noticed it. My antenna will lean that much.


I would leave the antenna alone if all the elements are driven. Unless like you said you found an article on that specific antenna. If so post it here, curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by IDRick /forum/post/15557700


Yes, it is possible that you have pre-amp overload similar to the other thread. You don't have as many strong stations but the input power levels from your highest two stations exceed Holl_ands recommendations for an AP-8700. Pre-amp overload impacts the dynamic range of the pre-amp and can reduce reception of low power stations.


You may want to check out this thread and post your queries there: http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hd...reception.html

I looked for the post here where I think it was him when through preamp overload and receiver overload but adding ant gain, coax and splitter loss, etc. But I can't find it again.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top