Tv antenna recommendations

Bill.Satellite wrote:
If you use a Sensar plus the Sensar Pro then you have the better antenna and it takes less than 10 seconds to point properly.

SoundGuy wrote:
As a Sensar IV / SensarPro owner I'd disagree. At home most of us now live in an age of cable and satellite feeds that require no fiddling around with an antenna so having to do so when camping is a real PITA.

Bill.Satellite wrote:
To disagree you would have to show me some other RV antenna that you have used at that location that does a better/quicker job. Just because you are in an area with bad reception does not mean there is anything wrong with your antenna or that some other RV antenna would do better. I am not sure how Cable or Satellite TV entered this discussion.

I don't have to "show" you anything. :R The GTA (Greater Toronto Area) is hardly "an area with bad reception" but as we all know it doesn't take much digital signal dropout to cause complete loss of signal. Many prefer the King Controls Jack TV antenna, whether they realize it or not, because it offers a wider angle of acceptance and is therefore easier to use in finding and keeping a station ... just what those of us used to cable or satellite in our homes would prefer over having to constantly fiddle with a high gain directional antenna like the Winegard Sensar. "Better" isn't just about gain but also ease of use and is the reason many declare preference for the Jack TV antenna. ;)

SoundGuy wrote:

Bill.Satellite wrote:
If you use a Sensar plus the Sensar Pro then you have the better antenna and it takes less than 10 seconds to point properly.

As a Sensar IV / SensarPro owner I'd disagree. At home most of us now live in an age of cable and satellite feeds that require no fiddling around with an antenna so having to do so when camping is a real PITA. Here at the house I regularly receive 23 stations, most off the CN Tower in Toronto or from across the lake in Buffalo but in that group of US stations WGRZ (VHF Ch 2 in the analogue days, now transmitting on UHF Ch33 but shows up as virtual Ch 2.1 on the television) is flaky at the best of times even though it's transmitter is located in the same area as most of the other Buffalo stations. So too is our Canadian CTV flagship station CFTO in Toronto which transmits on VHF Ch 9 and isn't but 30 miles from here ... should come in like gangbusters, but doesn't unless I fiddle and fool with the Sensar IV and do multiple scans. If I camp 30 minutes from here I'm lucky to find even a couple of stations, no matter how many scans I do, no matter how much I fool around with my Sensar IV antenna. No wonder so many go to satellite ... or give up entirely on OTA. :R

To disagree you would have to show me some other RV antenna that you have used at that location that does a better/quicker job. Just because you are in an area with bad reception does not mean there is anything wrong with your antenna or that some other RV antenna would do better. I am not sure how Cable or Satellite TV entered this discussion.

SoundGuy wrote:

Bill.Satellite wrote:
If you use a Sensar plus the Sensar Pro then you have the better antenna and it takes less than 10 seconds to point properly.

As a Sensar IV / SensarPro owner I'd disagree. At home most of us now live in an age of cable and satellite feeds that require no fiddling around with an antenna so having to do so when camping is a real PITA. Here at the house I regularly receive 23 stations, most off the CN Tower in Toronto or from across the lake in Buffalo but in that group of US stations WGRZ (VHF Ch 2 in the analogue days, now transmitting on UHF Ch33 but shows up as virtual Ch 2.1 on the television) is flaky at the best of times even though it's transmitter is located in the same area as most of the other Buffalo stations. So too is our Canadian CTV flagship station CFTO in Toronto which transmits on VHF Ch 9 and isn't but 30 miles from here ... should come in like gangbusters, but doesn't unless I fiddle and fool with the Sensar IV and do multiple scans. If I camp 30 minutes from here I'm lucky to find even a couple of stations, no matter how many scans I do, no matter how much I fool around with my Sensar IV antenna. No wonder so many go to satellite ... or give up entirely on OTA. :R

Make one of these Gray-Hoverman arrays.. If your broadcast station is over 50 mi. or there are dropout issues, use two arrays.

I have one of these on a mast on the RV and, at home, 30 mi. from the broadcast towers, I receive all available channels. I'm using a standard Magnavox LCD/LED screen and the picture quality is as good as the plasma screens in the house on cable.

Bill.Satellite wrote:
If you use a Sensar plus the Sensar Pro then you have the better antenna and it takes less than 10 seconds to point properly.

As a Sensar IV / SensarPro owner I'd disagree. At home most of us now live in an age of cable and satellite feeds that require no fiddling around with an antenna so having to do so when camping is a real PITA. Here at the house I regularly receive 23 stations, most off the CN Tower in Toronto or from across the lake in Buffalo but in that group of US stations WGRZ (VHF Ch 2 in the analogue days, now transmitting on UHF Ch33 but shows up as virtual Ch 2.1 on the television) is flaky at the best of times even though it's transmitter is located in the same area as most of the other Buffalo stations. So too is our Canadian CTV flagship station CFTO in Toronto which transmits on VHF Ch 9 and isn't but 30 miles from here ... should come in like gangbusters, but doesn't unless I fiddle and fool with the Sensar IV and do multiple scans. If I camp 30 minutes from here I'm lucky to find even a couple of stations, no matter how many scans I do, no matter how much I fool around with my Sensar IV antenna. No wonder so many go to satellite ... or give up entirely on OTA. :R

I don't believe anyone said the Jack was bad. The reality is that the Sensar is better. If you use a Sensar plus the Sensar Pro then you have the better antenna and it takes less than 10 seconds to point properly. I don't remember Jeff's results but I think he also compared an incorrectly pointed Sensar with an improperly pointed Jack (yes, the Jack is directional as well).
Both antennas work and both antennas do a pretty good job and both have limitations. I have the Winegard Razar Air which is more like a Jack but is less directional but just as limited on the VHF channels.

I swapped out my stock Antenna Tek on my TT last week and installed a Winegard Sensar and Wingman, went from 3 channels to 44.

I just replaced our Jack antenna with a Winegard and so far we seem to receive more channels. The acid test will be when we go to our favorite spot at Lake Mineral Well SP. With the Jack could only get three stations.

westend wrote:
SVC Jeff, a Forum member that knows his broadcast electronics and has a very sophisticated signal analyzer tested the Winegard and Jack antennas. The Winegard was the better receiver. A lot of folks swear by the Jack antenna, stating it improved their reception over the Winegard. I believe Jeff.

Not to be argumentative but this is an oversimplified conclusion and isn't a matter of whether or not to believe SVCJeff's results. I've read his report and it's indisputable that analyzed measurements of a Winegard Sensar IV correctly pointed is more sensitive across both the VHF and UHF bands than is a King Controls Jack TV antenna. However, the reality is that many users find the Jack easier to use and from their perspective have it successfully receive more stations because it's not as directional as is the Sensar. As Jeff's results clearly demonstrate the Jack does work well in the UHF band but is not nearly so effective in the VHF band ... but most users wouldn't recognize this difference as many stations moved from VHF to UHF during the analogue > digital transition, meaning there are far more now transmitting in the UHF band than used to be the case. Many also wouldn't be aware that many stations that still do tune in on one's television as a VHF channel, say Ch 2, are in fact transmitting on a UHF frequency, referred to as virtual channel transmission. Many therefore conclude that the Jack antenna is the "better" of the two when in fact, as measured with a signal analyzer and the results carefully noted, the Winegard Sensar IV is clearly the more sensitive antenna. However, none of us actually watch TV using a signal analyzer and would prefer to put as little effort into tuning in signals as we can and because of that simple human fact the Jack antenna often is referred to by many as the "better" of the two antennas. And yes, I've owned both and although I currently run a Sensar IV with a SensarPro signal amplifier there are times I'd still prefer the Jack's ease of use. :)

SVC Jeff, a Forum member that knows his broadcast electronics and has a very sophisticated signal analyzer tested the Winegard and Jack antennas. The Winegard was the better receiver. A lot of folks swear by the Jack antenna, stating it improved their reception over the Winegard. I believe Jeff.