Upgrading my TV Antenna

SoundGuy wrote:

In your area your particular example may be fact but the FACT is that many stations broadcast on a real channel in the UHF band but show up on the television as a virtual channel in the VHF band. But then, you'd know that, wouldn't you? :R

Which doesn't change the FACT that many stations have elected to return or move to a VHF broadcast channel as part of the current repack that removes the UHF channels above 36 regardless of the virtual channel number they display.

n7bsn wrote:
Locally, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are all VHF again. Only 4 and 5 (and 16, 22, etc) are UHF.

SoundGuy wrote:
Maybe ... just because a station shows up on your television on Ch 7 doesn't mean it's actually transmitting on that VHF channel and not a UHF channel. ;)

n7bsn wrote:
No maybe
It's a fact.
(hint note my user name is my Ham call, that might clue you I know a few things about radio, I also am an EE and a published author on antenna design, specifically VHF and UHF antennas)

In your area your particular example may be fact but the FACT is that many stations broadcast on a real channel in the UHF band but show up on the television as a virtual channel in the VHF band. But then, you'd know that, wouldn't you? :R

SoundGuy wrote:

n7bsn wrote:
Locally, 7, 9, 11 and 13 are all VHF again. Only 4 and 5 (and 16, 22, etc) are UHF.

Maybe ... just because a station shows up on your television on Ch 7 doesn't mean it's actually transmitting on that VHF channel and not a UHF channel. ;) One would have to refer to a transmission chart for their area such as TV Fool to establish just which stations are actually transmitting in the VHF band and which are in the UHF band.

No maybe
It's a fact.
(hint note my user name is my Ham call, that might clue you I know a few things about radio, I also am an EE and a published author on antenna design, specifically VHF and UHF antennas)

ScottG wrote:
I like it so much that when my roof was being replaced, I told the factory not to put the omni directional (fixed) bat-wing style ant back up there.

SoundGuy wrote:
Confusing post :@ - the so-called "bat wing" antenna such as the Winegard Sensar III or IV is not omni directional but directional and must be rotated for best reception.

ScottG wrote:
Here's the original ant:

That'a CA-2500, larger version of the CA-1500 I have, and although referred to as an omni directional antenna by the manufacturer is certainly is not equally sensitive around all planes. It's only "omni" in the sense that it's mounting position is fixed and can't be rotated. While I suppose one might refer to it as a batwing "style" antenna that only serves to confuse as that's a term used to refer to a rotatable antenna, the Winegard Sensar series being the most common, best performing in an RV application, and is an entirely different animal from these so-called batwing "style", so-called omni directional antennas which really deserve only one place to call home - the trash. :W I've got one only because my dealer was doing just that - tossing it in the trash - and offered it to me free. It normally hangs on my workshop wall but during the winter I put it upstairs in the house to feed the television I remove from the camper for the winter - ain't great but I do get a few channels and it's all free. :W

Don't confuse that thing in the picture that you call a Batwing with the Winegard Sensar that so many have nicknamed a Batwing. That is not even a Winegard product and I am not at all surprised it did not do well compared to the Jack. However, a Winegard Batwing (Sensar) would blow both of those away.

SoundGuy wrote:

ScottG wrote:
I like it so much that when my roof was being replaced, I told the factory not to put the omni directional (fixed) bat-wing style ant back up there.

Confusing post :@ - the so-called "bat wing" antenna such as the Winegard Sensar III or IV is not omni directional but directional and must be rotated for best reception.

For anyone interested this is the Jack Antenna vs Winegard Sensar Comparison Test by SVCJeff that was referred to earlier.

Yeah, that's why I said bat wing "style". It wasn't a traditional BW because it was fixed but it looked like one. It couldn't be raised or turned.

Here's the original ant:


I did side by side comparisons between the traditional BW on our last TT and a new Jack and there was no comparison, the Jack blew it out of the water. That's why I had them leave this new omni thing off. I believe any omni can be beat by a directional.
It really shouldn't have been put right next to the AC either.

It's a zero sum game. If you want an omni-directional antenna, you give up gain and the number of channels you can receive. An antenna which can/needs to be pointed will _always_ work better for distant stations. Physics is physics. If you camp near LA or NY, an omni is fine. If you camp near Wibaux, MT, get a Batwing. To each his own.

For currently available antennas (not antennae, that's insects), the Winegard Batwings are the best currently available.

I guess if there are no provisions to rotate an antenna, it will receive whatever it can get in all directions. You might as well call a piece of junk omnidirectional because there is no choice of direction. Hopefully this junk will be exposed for what it is and not become the norm.

Lynnmor wrote:
There are many “batwing” style antennas, now being installed, that are indeed omnidirectional. They are cheap junk made to look like a real antenna. Even some of the highest priced trailers are pulling this trick.

Correction ... there are many batwing style antennas that claim to be omni directional, thereby suggesting they're equally sensitive in all planes and therefore don't have to be rotated, but in fact they're not. I've got this exact model currently sitting in my master bedroom and I can assure you that rotating it does significantly impact it's ability to receive signals. I use it during the winter to feed OTA to the trailer television which I remove for the winter and use in the house. Omni it's not, no matter what the manufacturer may claim. ;)

SoundGuy wrote:

ScottG wrote:
I like it so much that when my roof was being replaced, I told the factory not to put the omni directional (fixed) bat-wing style ant back up there.

Confusing post :@ - the so-called "bat wing" antenna such as the Winegard Sensar III or IV is not omni directional but directional and must be rotated for best reception.

For anyone interested this is the Jack Antenna vs Winegard Sensar Comparison Test by SVCJeff that was referred to earlier.

There are many “batwing” style antennas, now being installed, that are indeed omnidirectional. They are cheap junk made to look like a real antenna. Even some of the highest priced trailers are pulling this trick.