Antenna explanation

We WERE discussing and making the point that there is no such thing as an HD antenna. If you choose to classify a UHF antenna as HD, that’s up to you, but totally it is incorrect in the real world. Additionally you seem to think that the stations now on VHF are “allowed to transmit there for awhile”. You need to pay more attention to what’s really going on, because it simply ain’t true. The transition has happened, and those who are now on VHF are going to stay there with VERY VERY few exceptions. There are LOTS of Full Power, Class-A , and LP digital transmitters on VHF, and they will stay (although LP is on the block).

HERE is the Seventh Report and Order published by the FCC and adopted in 2007, all 131 pages of it, listing every television transmitter in the US and it’s territories, and their assigned channels. This is, and will be in effect for many years to come. If you care to debate who is and isn’t on VHF, start on page 67 and get back to us.

As for antennas that are or are not “tuned”, what exactly does that mean anyway? If you are talking about optimizing the batwing? That is exactly what the Wingman was designed to do and it does it well. Antennas are antennas and you can only squeeze so much out of one before adding amplifiers. I WILL do the testing on this when I can, but if I were to point to a deficiency between a Jack and a Batwing I would look at the Batwing's pre-amp that has changed very little since the 1970’s.

Further you state that the Jack is “tuned for UHF” I doubt you have any proof of this, but IF true would severely impact all of those VHF listings that you claim are only temporary. The difference between the two as antennas (only), and taking all the electronics away is that the Jack probably performs poorly on VHF-Lo simply because it is missing the low-band element, something that makes the Batwing a Batwing. There are still a very few VHF-Lo transmitters out there, and when trying to see those, Batwing wins. Did the Batwing once suffer on UHF? Yes, but it was never not designed for UHF. There is a UHF element inside the Batwing hood and goes through a band splitter before hitting the head amp. The Wingman, and now Batwing with the Wingman built in just made it work really well. So tell me whats not ‘HD’ in your book about this antenna?

Like Tom I also am a TV guy and still (unfortunately ) working. As mentioned before I also did some pretty through testing of the Batwing with and without the Wingman before the transition, something Winegard hadn’t done and they posted a link from my post here on RV.net to their website. I don’t need to make any of this up because its all I do,

I use both the Winegard batwing with Wingman and the Jack antennas. My observations are that the batwing does much better on the VHF channels and the Jack does better on UHF but poorly on VHF.

I am a retired TV broadcast tech and was heavily involved in the installation of equipment for the digital transition. To call a TV antenna a digital antenna or a high definition antenna just adds to the confusion. Most antennas that are used today are no different from antennas that were used decades ago. The most common antennas used today are broadband combination VHF/UHF. During the transition from analog to digital, TV stations were required to broadcast both analog and digital signals. Almost all stations transmitted digital on the UHF band because there was no room left on the VHF band. At that time many people bought "High Definition" antennas which were nothing more than a standard UHF antenna. The very same UHF antenna you could purchase decades ago, except the new one now has "High Definition" plastered all over the box. Once analog was shut down this opened up channels on VHF and many stations started broadcasting digital on there VHF channel. All that was required was to basically install a digital modulator into what was previously the analog transmitter. No changes had to be made to the existing transmission line or antenna. The main advantage to broadcasting on VHF rather than UHF is the power needed. VHF requires much less power to cover the same area as UHF. The station that I worked at was pumping out 1,000 kilowatts for UHF. When they switched to VHF the power they needed to cover the same area was 40 kilowatts. VHF is not going away as was stated earlier, so don't through out that VHF antenna.

MNtundraRet wrote:
Quote:
"You can both read other technical responses to see how correct I am but you choose to be obstinate. Kind of like smokers who still argue there's nothing bad in cigarettes.

FWIW, the batt-wing can indeed receive UHF but it is biased towards VHF just as the newer antenna's can receive both VLF and UHF but are biased towards UHF.
You argue that I'm "misinformed" but you can't make a technical argument for your statements.
I guess to argue is enough for some."
---

I see from your profile you are hiding in the weeds. A number of us on "Open Roads" have experience, education, in building antennas for HAM radio use and television. Some are now/were in the broadcast business. I don't see any coming to your defense.

Hiding in the weeds? Ah, I see; you can't argue with facts so you try to use some kind of insult.
Your being rather arrogant. You have no idea what my background is and FYI, I also built my own antenna's and did amateur radio for a time.
None of that matters though because it doesn't change the facts regarding the antenna's we have been discussing.
Can you hold a civil discussion?
If so please list the facts I have in error.

Quote:
"You can both read other technical responses to see how correct I am but you choose to be obstinate. Kind of like smokers who still argue there's nothing bad in cigarettes.

FWIW, the batt-wing can indeed receive UHF but it is biased towards VHF just as the newer antenna's can receive both VLF and UHF but are biased towards UHF.
You argue that I'm "misinformed" but you can't make a technical argument for your statements.
I guess to argue is enough for some."
---

I see from your profile you are hiding in the weeds. A number of us on "Open Roads" have experience, education, in building antennas for HAM radio use and television. Some are now/were in the broadcast business. I don't see any coming to your defense.

MNtundraRet wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:
You seriously need to get you facts straight as almost everything you state here is incorrect.

Where do you get this from anyway?

X2! The guy is misinformed. :R

You can both read other technical responses to see how correct I am but you choose to be obstinate. Kind of like smokers who still argue there's nothing bad in cigarettes.

FWIW, the batt-wing can indeed receive UHF but it is biased towards VHF just as the newer antenna's can receive both VLF and UHF but are biased towards UHF.
You argue that I'm "misinformed" but you can't make a technical argument for your statements.
I guess to argue is enough for some.

To say that the Batwing antenna is not tuned for UHF is simply absurd! The Batwing antenna has both VHF (the long arms) and UHF (inside the plastic housing) elements and is optimized for the reception of both. The Wingman does allow for the reception of UHF signals from a longer distance or weaker broadcast but it has always been a fully capable UHF/VHF antenna.

Why do you keep saying things like this:

After the HD broadcasts began, I replaced this massive beam antenna with a small grid-style "HD antenna", and removed the rotor completely

You have already correctly agreed that there is no such thing. You just installed a UHF antenna.

SCVJeff wrote:
You seriously need to get you facts straight as almost everything you state here is incorrect.

Where do you get this from anyway?

Actually I think it is you who isn't paying attention. You are technically correct when you state there isn't such a thing as an "HD antenna", but that is splitting hairs.

Pre-HD (analog TV days), UHF channels were the minority of channels in most markets, and they were also often independent channels people didn't care about. So the antennas made back then were tuned for optimal VHF reception, since those tended to be the more difficult channels to tune in over a long distance. In order to recieve UHF channels, you either had to get an antenna with a UHF grid, or add one to your antenna stack. Many people didn't care enough about UHF to bother with this step. (I know 2 personally)

Newer antennas marketed as "HD" as simply tuned to receive much better UHF, since that is now the vast majority of broadcast network transmissions. They still recieve VHF (mine does) so you don't lose any of those channels either, but the UHF reception is dramatically improved, so your HD reception is dramatically improved.

I will agree with you, that if someone HAS an old antenna on their roof or RV that picks up UHF acceptably, it will work fine with HD. (Hence no such thing as an "HD antenna")

But if your old antenna had weak UHF reception to begin with, then it will suck picking up HD. Installing one of the newer designs will make a dramatic improvement.

My own house is right in between 2 major markets, unfortunately 50+ miles from each. In the old days, I couldn't pick up ANY of the UHF analog broadcasts, they were far too weak. But I paid decent money for a massive beam antenna that picked up VHF reasonably well, even though it had to run through a rotor to get both markets. After the HD broadcasts began, I replaced this massive beam antenna with a small grid-style "HD antenna", and removed the rotor completely. I now receive all channels, from both markets, with no need to turn the antenna at all. I went from a beam antenna that weighed 30 pounds and had about a 5 foot span and needed a tripd mount on my roof to support, to a grid about 2 feet square that is light enough to mount on a pole attached to my gutter.

So don't tell me there isn't a benefit in the new antennas.

SCVJeff wrote:
You seriously need to get you facts straight as almost everything you state here is incorrect.

Where do you get this from anyway?

X2! The guy is misinformed. :R

You seriously need to get you facts straight as almost everything you state here is incorrect.

Where do you get this from anyway?

SCVJeff wrote:

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.

Your confusing the facts and misleading people:
The batt wing is tuned for VHF.
The new Jack Ant. is tuned for UHF. HD TV is broadcast on UHF therefor it will receive HD TV better than an ant. that IS NOT tuned for UHF.
Yes, UHF has been around for ever but the batt-wing ant. isn't tuned for it.
Yes, there are small stations that will be allowed to transmit in VHF for a while.
Calling an UHF ant. "HD" merely helps people understand what it's for.
Anyone arguing that there is no performance difference in the old batt wing and new antenna's is false.