TV antenna
I have a bat wing on the roof, with a boost inside the coach. It kinda works, but not all that great. Also have a satellite on the roof that does nothing & nobody around here knows anything about it...
Forum Discussion
dodge guy wrote:SCVJeff wrote:67Cutlass wrote:We've been communicating about his OTA antennas, amps, coax, etc., via PM. Its been mentioned elsewhere here that OTA is as good as satellite, but in fact is significantly better than any satellite service. Those with a big screen and critical eye will notice it immediately.
Back to the OP's original question.
He asked which is better. Satellite or an OTA antenna. He didn't seam to indicated getting the max OTA channels was his goal. If he wants good OTA channels, then get the satellite system working and use the local channels that are available on it. When he moves just have his provider change the local channels. Those will always be available on the satellite.
Yes I know there are times satellite signal is blocked by trees and such. But there is also OTA problems with distance and masking too.
I've been RVing for 13 years, traveled ALL over the US and there has never been a time I did not get some type of satellite reception.
I don't remember the last time I even tried getting OTA channels.
That is one thing I will agree on. OTA has way better picture quality. I have U-verse and I can definitely tell the difference.
Back to the OP's question...
Which is better? The question refers to reception of an OTA signal not picture quality. Getting OTA signals in rural America can be a royal PITA. Satellite is the more consistent signal. You can get that anywhere. I'm not a videophile and the difference in overall picture quality is not that big of a deal. Now if I had and 80 inch HDTV in my motorhome, then I might be concerned about the difference in picture quality.
