TV antenna

cdl2 wrote:
67Cutlass.....Thanks.
Winegard doesn't make parts for my satellite dish any more.
Even in Ohio the OTA signals are bad in some places.

You could always get a satellite antenna with a tripod fairly cheap. Or spend a few hundred and get one of those automatic portable satellite antennas. IF HD TV is important to you, none of the automatic antennas work with DirecTV HD. But they work with Dish.

I'm satellite aiming challenged. We have the automatic Winegard Travler satellite antenna on our roof and in those rare instances when the Travler can't see all the satellites I setup the Winegard Carryout. Since we have Dish I still get HD. No problem with getting local channels.

The one thing about getting tons of OTA channels you are still limited to three national networks and PBS if you want to consider it. With just three networks you'll get a lot of duplicate shows during prime time. On those digits channels with multiple digital sub-channels you get a lot of junk on those channels. Who wants to watch weather radar 24/7 with out any commentary. Or some really bad/amateurish/local junk, like how grandma raises her chickens. But if that type of programming floats you boat then go for it.

Granted satellite cost more, but you get what you pay for.

Pogoil wrote:
For those that have not tried over the air you might want to give it a try. The digital channels are of satellite quality. Most are better than any cable.

The biggest issue is we are all different some are okay with a few channels and some pay hundreds for every channel and still do not have enough channels. I can tell you we had 70 + channels and after a year with 28 channels I would not go back to 70 or more again. But then my TV. is only on about 2-3 hours a day sometimes not even turned on.

One thing is for sure with OTA. you can save thousands of dollars in a very short time.

Pogoil.

I hardly ever watch OTA channels because the places I go to are hardly ever close to big cities where they have the giant antenna's. I try to get away from the city life because I hate heavy traffic, so that is why I use satellite service. I can get up to 250 channels if I desire, but in reality I only watch a handfull out of all those channels. I like to watch the news, National Geographic and some sports. My wife will watch movies. With Direct TV I get all the local channels.

Problem with OTA channels is that most of the channels are spanish programs which I do not understand. My digital TV will pick up a lot of stations IF like I said if I am close to a TV tower, flat terrain, no mountains. If you are in a canyon where the resort is, you are just out of luck for tv service.

For those that have not tried over the air you might want to give it a try. The digital channels are of satellite quality. Most are better than any cable.

The biggest issue is we are all different some are okay with a few channels and some pay hundreds for every channel and still do not have enough channels. I can tell you we had 70 + channels and after a year with 28 channels I would not go back to 70 or more again. But then my TV. is only on about 2-3 hours a day sometimes not even turned on.

One thing is for sure with OTA. you can save thousands of dollars in a very short time.

Pogoil.

67Cutlass.....Thanks.
Winegard doesn't make parts for my satellite dish any more.
Even in Ohio the OTA signals are bad in some places.

67Cutlass wrote:
Back to the OP's original question.

He asked witch 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.

Finally somebody that understood the original question. I agree that the best thing to do is fix or learn how to use the satellite antenna.

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.

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Then basically if the cable was bad, neither the Batwing or the Jack would work.

Wrong.. Most common cable problem is corrosion at the connection (Upper) and of course you cleaned it with you changed antennas (to clean disconnect and reconnect)

You may also have replaced the entire cable.. I would.

h

SCVJeff wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

Pogoil wrote:
The old batwing tuned 33 digital and 5 analog at the last campground.

Not bad in my opinion.

Pogoil.

Nope "not bad". but being able to tune more stations would be even better. I thought the same way till I replaced my antenna. more stations and what I get now has a better signal than before. no pixilating due to a weak signal.

SCVJeff, no idea what you are talking about, just posting my real world uses. I just want others to know that there is more and better than the "old technology" batwing.

You have no idea what "old technology" even means in the antenna world and continue to look foolish trying to justify your statements with one like that. No further comments are necessary.

:h OK!? If you say so!

I'm done too.

rgatijnet1 wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:
Many compare a 10 year old batwing with 10 year old cable to a 10 day Old Jack with 10 day old cable

10 year old cable likely need replacement.

Then basically if the cable was bad, neither the Batwing or the Jack would work. If the Jack does work, then there was obviously a problem with the Batwing.
So what? People make choices and according to the reviews at Amazon.com, which sells both, the Jack has a more favorable opinion from it's users than the Batwing.
Real world experience in your own RV beats any tests done by anyone at any time.

I just looked on Amazon and the Winegard Sensar IV has a 4.5 vs 4.1 for the Jack.

I agree that if you don't have the Sensar Pro Amp with peaking meter, the Jack will probably do as well. Adding the Pro and aiming the antenna doubled my channels at my house which 20-30 miles from the big antenna farm in Orlando.

dodge guy wrote:

Pogoil wrote:
The old batwing tuned 33 digital and 5 analog at the last campground.

Not bad in my opinion.

Pogoil.

Nope "not bad". but being able to tune more stations would be even better. I thought the same way till I replaced my antenna. more stations and what I get now has a better signal than before. no pixilating due to a weak signal.

SCVJeff, no idea what you are talking about, just posting my real world uses. I just want others to know that there is more and better than the "old technology" batwing.

You have no idea what "old technology" even means in the antenna world and continue to look foolish trying to justify your statements with one like that. No further comments are necessary.