On Jul 15, 3:43*pm, "Cubit" wrote:
I don't know your situation, but many folks can get away with using
rabbit
ears. *It works, or it doesn't. *Barring a serious distance
problem, a
proper antenna may not be needed.

I disagree on the rabbit ears. If you can do an outdoor antenna it's
preferable for many reasons like less multipath and stronger signal.

If an antenna made exactly for DTV is cheap, then fine. *However, I
suspect
you may pay extra for an antenna with limited bandwidth over a
close out
sale on an old fashioned 2 through 82 antenna.

If you don't mind the size of the antenna. The Winegard 7694 is only
35" wide vs 110" for the 7082. There is no such ting as an antenna
"made exactly for DTV". Antennas cover a range of frequencies thet may
include analog or digital TV. Flatness of response and directionality
are the important issues and are equally important for analog or
digital.

G²

In alt.tv.tech.hdtv G-squared wrote:

| If you don't mind the size of the antenna. The Winegard 7694 is only
| 35" wide vs 110" for the 7082. There is no such ting as an antenna
| "made exactly for DTV". Antennas cover a range of frequencies thet may
| include analog or digital TV. Flatness of response and directionality
| are the important issues and are equally important for analog or
| digital.

However, antennas could be made for "post-transition channel allocations".
E.g. the UHF antennas tuned for 14-51, and dual-banders for 7-51. And DTV
benefits more from more directional antennas, so even those will end up
with sales people labelling them as "DTV".

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv G-squared wrote:

| If you don't mind the size of the antenna. The Winegard 7694 is only
| 35" wide vs 110" for the 7082. There is no such ting as an antenna
| "made exactly for DTV". Antennas cover a range of frequencies thet may
| include analog or digital TV. Flatness of response and directionality
| are the important issues and are equally important for analog or
| digital.

However, antennas could be made for "post-transition channel allocations".
E.g. the UHF antennas tuned for 14-51, and dual-banders for 7-51. And DTV
benefits more from more directional antennas, so even those will end up
with sales people labelling them as "DTV".


Which will do no good here at all. Post transition our local ABC
affiliate is going to VHF channel 5.

There is no substitute for the long tried and tested combo vhf/uhf
antenna in our area.

Hasan Schiers wrote:
wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv G-squared wrote:

| If you don't mind the size of the antenna. The Winegard 7694 is only
| 35" wide vs 110" for the 7082. There is no such ting as an antenna
| "made exactly for DTV". Antennas cover a range of frequencies thet may
| include analog or digital TV. Flatness of response and directionality
| are the important issues and are equally important for analog or
| digital.

However, antennas could be made for "post-transition channel
allocations".
E.g. the UHF antennas tuned for 14-51, and dual-banders for 7-51. And
DTV
benefits more from more directional antennas, so even those will end up
with sales people labelling them as "DTV".


Which will do no good here at all. Post transition our local ABC
affiliate is going to VHF channel 5.

There is no substitute for the long tried and tested combo vhf/uhf
antenna in our area.

I see only 1 ABC affiliate going to VHF 5 post-transition and that is
WOI-DT ABC 5 in Des Moines moving from UHF 59 to VHF 5. Is that your
local ABC affiliate? The FCC database shows WOI-DT with a low STA
(Special Temporary Authority) power of 500 Watts on UHF 59 which is a
very weak power if correct.

The good news to some extent is that WOI-DT was granted their request
to run at an increased power of 8.2 kW (up from 3.91 kW) for the
post-transition VHF 5 allotment which is a good power level for digital
low VHF. In Des Moines, IA, there should be a number of open channels to
broadcast on UHF if WIO wanted to.

Alan F

Alan F wrote:
Hasan Schiers wrote:
wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv G-squared wrote:

| If you don't mind the size of the antenna. The Winegard 7694 is only
| 35" wide vs 110" for the 7082. There is no such ting as an antenna
| "made exactly for DTV". Antennas cover a range of frequencies thet may
| include analog or digital TV. Flatness of response and directionality
| are the important issues and are equally important for analog or
| digital.

However, antennas could be made for "post-transition channel
allocations".
E.g. the UHF antennas tuned for 14-51, and dual-banders for 7-51.
And DTV
benefits more from more directional antennas, so even those will end up
with sales people labelling them as "DTV".


Which will do no good here at all. Post transition our local ABC
affiliate is going to VHF channel 5.

There is no substitute for the long tried and tested combo vhf/uhf
antenna in our area.

I see only 1 ABC affiliate going to VHF 5 post-transition and that is
WOI-DT ABC 5 in Des Moines moving from UHF 59 to VHF 5. Is that your
local ABC affiliate? The FCC database shows WOI-DT with a low STA
(Special Temporary Authority) power of 500 Watts on UHF 59 which is a
very weak power if correct.

The good news to some extent is that WOI-DT was granted their request
to run at an increased power of 8.2 kW (up from 3.91 kW) for the
post-transition VHF 5 allotment which is a good power level for digital
low VHF. In Des Moines, IA, there should be a number of open channels to
broadcast on UHF if WIO wanted to.

Alan F



Yes, that is the station and they have applied for a further increase in
power to around 13 kW, but I don't know if it has been granted. So, we
do have a low band vhf station that will "appear" in Feb 2009. I am at a
total loss to explain why they made this decision...it is likely to
reduce their footprint significantly. Channel 8-1 is doing the same
thing, moving from RF Ch 31 to RF Ch 8, at the same time.

Ch 5 analog has been famous for years here for having a rotten signal.
When they went digital to 5-1 on UHF, they skyrocketed and have been
solid....now they are going back and probably in the toilet again. Thank
God ABC lost Monday Night Football.

Hasan Schiers wrote:
Alan F wrote:
Hasan Schiers wrote:
Which will do no good here at all. Post transition our local ABC
affiliate is going to VHF channel 5.

There is no substitute for the long tried and tested combo vhf/uhf
antenna in our area.

I see only 1 ABC affiliate going to VHF 5 post-transition and that is
WOI-DT ABC 5 in Des Moines moving from UHF 59 to VHF 5. Is that your
local ABC affiliate? The FCC database shows WOI-DT with a low STA
(Special Temporary Authority) power of 500 Watts on UHF 59 which is a
very weak power if correct.

The good news to some extent is that WOI-DT was granted their request
to run at an increased power of 8.2 kW (up from 3.91 kW) for the
post-transition VHF 5 allotment which is a good power level for digital
low VHF. In Des Moines, IA, there should be a number of open channels to
broadcast on UHF if WIO wanted to.

Alan F


Yes, that is the station and they have applied for a further increase in
power to around 13 kW, but I don't know if it has been granted. So, we
do have a low band vhf station that will "appear" in Feb 2009. I am at a
total loss to explain why they made this decision...it is likely to
reduce their footprint significantly. Channel 8-1 is doing the same
thing, moving from RF Ch 31 to RF Ch 8, at the same time.

Ch 5 analog has been famous for years here for having a rotten signal.
When they went digital to 5-1 on UHF, they skyrocketed and have been
solid....now they are going back and probably in the toilet again. Thank
God ABC lost Monday Night Football.

WOI-DT applied for a 11.5 kW ERP on VHF 5 in June, but the FCC has not
granted or rejected the application yet. The only real reason I can see
for going to low-VHF for where they are is to save money by re-using the
VHF 5 antenna & transmitter and for the lower operating costs of low
VHF. Their UHF 59 digital signal is out of core, so they have to give
that up. If they have interference problems for analog on VHF 5, that
won't go away for digital VHF 5.

You have 3 stations in Des Moines do a digital flash cut to their
upper VHF analog channel. Upper VHF at 174 to 216 MHz (compared to low
VHF at 54 to 88 MHz) is considered a good band for digital broadcasting.

KCCI-DT CBS 8 will move from 31 to VHF 8 at 23 kW ERP.
KDIN-DT PBS 11 will move from UHF 50 to 11 at 19.8 kW, but plans to
operate on UHF 50 for a while after the analog shutdown for VHF 11
antenna work
(http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/f...bit_id=618292).
WHO-DT NBC 13 will move from UHF 19 to VHF 13 at 29 kW ERP.

All 3 of them will have respectable power levels for digital upper
VHF. I also see that KDMI-DT My Network 56(?) will take over KCCI's RF
31 antenna and transmitter. Good luck with WOI-DT reception after they
switch.

Alan F

"Alan F" wrote in message
...

snip

Good luck with WOI-DT reception after they
switch.

Alan F


Right. The "noisy" devices -- motors, CFLs, dimmers, electronic ignition
for furnaces -- are the problem for most users. Lightning is a
consideration, but not all day and all night, like the appliances. A nice
tall tower and a tight coax cable system will help keep out the domestic
RFI, but the people who live in town are likely not going to have towers.