Antenna explanation

ScottG wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:

ScottG wrote:
The article is partially correct. There is no such thing as a HD antenna but an ant. that is specifically designed for improved UHF reception will work better for HD TV than one that was designed for VHF - like the venerable bat-wing. That's why antennas like the Jack pick up a lot more stations.

Assuming that the area in question is exclusively HD. Nobody has shown that a Jack performs better than anything else, other than the marketing folks at King

Actually there's lots of reviews and anecdotal evidence to suggest the new Jack ant works a lot better. In my case I get more channels and even get some where there was none before.
As far as an ant being an ant, that's just wrong. Antenna's are tuned for specific frequencies. I tried to explain that in my original post but perhaps I didn't do so well but old = VHF and new HD = UHF. The old bat-wing was tuned to the older VHF.
Mr. Wineguard and Caddywhompus posts before this one explain it well.

When we are talking about an antenna being 'HD', that is simply incorrect. I thought about having to go down the what's tuned for where path the time, but it was unnecessary. There is no 'HD UHF'. It's the same UHF as has been for the last 50+ years, and while its significantly more populated, television; both analog and digital (of any flavor) are not exclusive to UHF, so the antenna and supporting electronics need to be flat tuned across VHF Lo & Hi bands, as well as UHF. And that is something that concerns me with the Jack.

When the Wingman addition came out I didn't buy the hype, and I don't buy it with the Jack simply because they post nothing about their antenna, nor does anyone at the factory have a clue as to the performance of their antenna. That may have changed, but I called and asked and nobody knew nothing.. I'm sure it's just a packaged import. .

The testing I did at the time with the Wingman was posted here, and when I get a chance I'll run the same test with the Jack in the same spot with the same equipment, and in this case I am particularity interested in how it performs on VHF as the LA area is the poster child that VHF is far from dead.

MNtundraRet wrote:

I am quite sure that companies like Winegard could produce a higher amplified antenna but may be limited by FCC.

The only restrictions on receiving antennas are in the FAA rules
(there are references to the FAA rules in the FCC rules).

I have had both a brand new Jack and brand new Sensar IV side by side, using the same (non-hd, but digital) converter box with signal meter. The Sensar pulled in slightly more signal strength on all, a lot more on one which is still VHF.
That said- I have seen large differences by moving a few feet, so it is hard to get a 100% comparison.

One thing we all need to understand is that television stations are regulated on how far the transmitted signals can carry. They are not allowed to interfere with other metro transmitter areas.

This circle is on average 60 miles (larger in less populated/less in heavily populated areas).

I am quite sure that companies like Winegard could produce a higher amplified antenna but may be limited by FCC.

Since the amount of people who camp is a small percentage of world population, and the percentage of campers who take part in "Open Roads" is even smaller what we do does not bother the FCC.

We can buy better antennas and amplifiers to increase our range for picking up "free" over the air television (at home or in a RV). A second "in-line" amplifier is an in-expensive way of increasing our range on a current directional antenna.

While in the recent past I would have expected my amplifier to also work with the Jack antenna too, I am not so sure now. Some people are having problems using new Jack antenna on the Winegard system.

No one has mentioned adding the second amplifier on a Jack Antenna system yet. I am happy with my current system and have no reason to check the Jack.

By the way. Arguing over what to call a antenna is kin to arguing over whether an MH is a Class B or a Class C. IT DOESN,T MATTER!

SCVJeff wrote:

ScottG wrote:
The article is partially correct. There is no such thing as a HD antenna but an ant. that is specifically designed for improved UHF reception will work better for HD TV than one that was designed for VHF - like the venerable bat-wing. That's why antennas like the Jack pick up a lot more stations.

Assuming that the area in question is exclusively HD. Nobody has shown that a Jack performs better than anything else, other than the marketing folks at King

Actually there's lots of reviews and anecdotal evidence to suggest the new Jack ant works a lot better. In my case I get more channels and even get some where there was none before.
As far as an ant being an ant, that's just wrong. Antenna's are tuned for specific frequencies. I tried to explain that in my original post but perhaps I didn't do so well but old = VHF and new HD = UHF. The old bat-wing was tuned to the older VHF.
Mr. Wineguard and Caddywhompus posts before this one explain it well.

It IS as black and white as "there is no such thing as an HD antenna" but what antenna you need on a house will depend on whether the channels in your area are ALL UHF or a combination of UHF and VHF.
If you are in an RV you absolutely need an antenna that is optimized for both UHF and VHF since about 20% of the broadcasts in the US are still on the VHF frequencies. Nearly every market in the US still has at least one major Network that is broadcast on the VHF frequency.
To limit your viewing to UHF or VHF only just doesn't make any sense. Most antennas that claim they are "Digital Antennas" are really just UHF antennas and there are some really odd looking ones with bow-ties, circles and rectangles. Most of these are designed to fit on the arms of the Winegard Batwing antenna but take away nearly all of the VHF reception capabilities.

This is not as black and white as the OP implies.

Most HD channels broadcast on the UHF band, not VHF. Around this area, most of our channels (pre-HDTV) were VHF bands, so many people spent a lot of money on VHF antennas for their roof, some even skipping the UHF grid altogether. My Father-in-law was one of these people. When TV went HD, he lost almost all his channels because his VHF antenna wasn't picking up the right signals.

The HDTV antennas I buy are tuned specifically to pick up UHF signals, and will provide MUCH better reception. After installing a new HD antenna on his roof (which by the way cost LESS than the VHF antenna he had up there), he got all his channels back, and some he never was able to pick up before.

Not everything is black and white. His neighbor was an electrical engineer who also told me there was no such thing as an HD antenna. After I showed him what I installed, and the resulting reception improvement, he went and bought one too.

Janss wrote:
When I see HD TVs at my friends' houses, the regular old channels (non-HD) look worse on their TVs than on my old analog TV. Why?

Because of this, I hesitate to buy a new TV.

(Sorry to take this thread on a tangent, but it seemed a good opportunity for my inquiry.)

This is common for NO HD channels to look a little worse on a HD tv.
I have a DTV non HD box and the channels don't look as good...Have heard this also from many people.

Janss wrote:
I guess I'm in kindergarten then, because I had been wondering why the often discussed Jack antenna, for example, labels itself as an HDTV Antenna

That is easy.. If I offered you two IDENTICAL antennas.. one says

"Television Antenna" on the box and the other one which costs 25% more says "HDTV" which are you more likely to buy?

Well. YOU... perhaps will buy smart. But most folks will buy the "HDTV" antenna.

The next question is "How can they get away with it?" Answer. Simple. it really is an HDTV antenna... So is the other one (recall they are identical) as any TV antenna is an HDTV antenna. Thus it's not even false advertising.. It is the brain of the buyer that is faulty.

I recall an FMCA rally where folks were selling bow-tie UHF antennas for 99 bucks, these things sell for like 20 bucks at Radio Shack (if that) but they marked them HDTV and sold 'em for 99 bucks,

And what's worse.. They won't pick up some HDTV stations where as the antenna they were replacing (WInegard) would...

ScottG wrote:
The article is partially correct. There is no such thing as a HD antenna but an ant. that is specifically designed for improved UHF reception will work better for HD TV than one that was designed for VHF - like the venerable bat-wing. That's why antennas like the Jack pick up a lot more stations.

Assuming that the area in question is exclusively UHF. Nobody has shown that a Jack performs better than anything else, other than the marketing folks at King