My 2015 Coachmen came with a none rotatable antenna, would a jack antenna or other option work better? Thanks

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.

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. :)

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.

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 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.

Tv antenna recommendations | Good Sam Community

Lynnmor
Explorer
Oct 28, 2015
Tom_M wrote:
Lynnmor wrote:
Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing
That company is located in Australia. I doubt that you will find one in the U.S.

Here is where I got the idea that those antennas were being installed in the USA. Mystery Antenna
Tom_M1
Explorer
Oct 28, 2015
Lynnmor wrote:
Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing
That company is located in Australia. I doubt that you will find one in the U.S.
Lynnmor
Explorer
Oct 28, 2015
BarneyS wrote:
TARDIS TIME TRAVELER wrote:
We replaced our Bat Wing fixed TV antenna with a Winegard RS-3000 (fixed 360 deg.)a couple years ago. It works really well. sitting at home we went from 3 to over 20 channels.

I have never seen or heard of a "fixed" Bat Wing antenna. Are you saying you had a Winegard Bat Wing antenna that did not rotate? If so, it is no wonder you only got three channels, This is a new one for me.
Barney

Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing
IAMICHABOD
Explorer II
Oct 28, 2015
I have to agree with Sound Guy, best may be what is easy and get the most that you can without constantly having to adjust the antenna for each channel.

I have found that the Rayzar is best suited to this for me. I get everything that is in range without constant adjustments.
BarneyS
Explorer III
Oct 28, 2015
TARDIS TIME TRAVELER wrote:
We replaced our Bat Wing fixed TV antenna with a Winegard RS-3000 (fixed 360 deg.)a couple years ago. It works really well. sitting at home we went from 3 to over 20 channels.

I have never seen or heard of a "fixed" Bat Wing antenna. Are you saying you had a Winegard Bat Wing antenna that did not rotate? If so, it is no wonder you only got three channels, This is a new one for me.
Barney
TARDIS_TIME_TRA
Explorer
Oct 28, 2015
We replaced our Bat Wing fixed TV antenna with a Winegard RS-3000 (fixed 360 deg.)a couple years ago. It works really well. sitting at home we went from 3 to over 20 channels.
eocamper
Explorer
Oct 28, 2015
FWIW, I could not catch ANY channels with the stationary antenna on my 2015 Grey Wolf. Just for kicks and giggles while camping I picked up a $15 HD antenna at Walmart. Figured it can't be worse than what I have now. I connected it to my cable input outside and hung it. To my surprise I caught a few (5) channels. I'm good with that since we only use our TV to wind down in the evenings.
SoundGuy
Explorer
Oct 27, 2015
SoundGuy wrote:
... 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.

Tom_M wrote:
Actually just the opposite happened (at least in the U.S.). During the period when stations where broadcasting both analog and digital there wasn't room on the VHF band for the digital channels, forcing them to broadcast digital on the UHF band. When the analog was shut down, this freed up the VHF channels and many stations moved the digital to the VHF. There are about 1800 full power TV stations in the U.S. and about 1/4 of these are now broadcasting on the high VHF band.

Here in the GTA ...

WGRZ (NBC) Buffalo - historically on VHF Ch 2 now transmits on UHF Ch 33
WIVB (CBS) Buffalo - historically on VHF Ch 4 now transmits on UHF Ch 39
WKBW (ABC) Buffalo - historically on VHF Ch 7 now transmits on UHF Ch 38

CBLT (CBC) Toronto - historically on VHF Ch 5 now transmits on UHF Ch 20
CFTO (CTV) Toronto - historically on VHF Ch 9 still transmits on VHF Ch 9 ... one of the very few that hasn't moved ****
CHCH (Ind) Hamilton - historically on VHF Ch 11 now transmits on UHF Ch 15

This is just a sampling ... most other stations also transmitting on UHF are newer stations that have always transmitted in the UHF band. In fact, when we examine either TV Fool's listing of stations for this market or this list of Canadian Stations Operating in Ontario we find very few that still remain on either VHF Lo or VHF Hi, the vast majority are transmitting on UHF where the King Controls Jack TV antenna is most effective.

The OP originally stated he had a non-rotatable antenna (which by definition would mean it's omni directional) and asked whether a Jack TV antenna or "other option" would work better. Many automatically recommended the Winegard Sensar IV as the "best" antenna but "best" is not necessarily defined solely by signal gain alone but also by ease of use. Fact is, the Winegard Sensar is an older antenna design originally intended for use in the VHF band that was updated for UHF reception with the addition of a UHF array they refer to as the Wingman, the combination being known as the Sensar IV. However, this antenna array is only able to achieve it's greater sensitivity by being as directional as it is and because of this can be a real PITA to tune in a station and retain it ... personally I'm tired of having to bounce up off the couch to endlessly rotate the antenna every time I change the channel. :M The Winegard Sensar is a proven design but it's obvious the company has lost market share to other systems such as the Jack TV which which works well in the UHF band where most stations are transmitting and because of it's wider acceptance angle which is deemed by many as easier to use. In response, Winegard has introduced their new Rayzar Air which is tuned to maximize UHF reception where most stations are transmitting and should be easier to use because it's bi-directional. As I said, "best" is not solely about sensitivity, it's also about ease of use. ;)
Tom_M1
Explorer
Oct 27, 2015
SoundGuy wrote:
... 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.
Actually just the opposite happened (at least in the U.S.). During the period when stations where broadcasting both analog and digital there wasn't room on the VHF band for the digital channels, forcing them to broadcast digital on the UHF band. When the analog was shut down, this freed up the VHF channels and many stations moved the digital to the VHF. There are about 1800 full power TV stations in the U.S. and about 1/4 of these are now broadcasting on the high VHF band.

One thing that can cause poor reception is multi-path (ghosting in the analog days). Usually a more directional antenna will help.
Bill_Satellite
Explorer II
Oct 25, 2015
OK, I will just accept that you disagree but that you have no basis for that argument.
I hope you find something that works better for you at your location (the actual issue, not the antenna). The UHF signals are SO flaky compared to the good 'ole VHF days. It was a terrible choice to move in that direction but the RVer was never even a thought in anyone's decision making. If you are in a home in a poor reception area, the answer is to get a bigger better antenna. If you are in the exact same spot and you own an RV you do not have similar solutions.

Forum Discussion

Tv antenna recommendations

About DIY Maintenance

Related Content

TV Antenna

TV antenna

TV antenna splitter

TV Antenna

Satalite vs Antenna TV