Rayzar Air retrofit antenna

MNtundraRet wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:

Winegard1 wrote:
The Rayzar air is not designed to receive Low-VHF (2-6)
It can receive High-VHF (7-13)

Eventually, most broadcasting towers will most likely switch over to UHF.

Where are you getting your information?

I wondered that as well, Jeff. In the Albany, NY market, station WXXA applied to the FCC and was granted permission to move from UHF channel 23 to VHF channel 7.

The band to be auctioned off (no longer for TV) was Low VHF (old analog channels 2 to 6). Channel 7 is in the remaining bands for TV. As we all should know regulations made by government do not always go as planned. Unless your a mind-reader no one knows when the regulated changes will be enforced by FCC, or modified by Congress.

That’s not what the FCC Chief of Staff told me directly at a meeting when this was all cooked up a few years ago. He was making a grand tour trying to convince us that this was the best thing since sliced bread and it would all be completely done before 2014… :R

The FCC doesn’t care about the low spectrum because it’s worth nothing to the data providers, they’re after the 600MHz band, THAT’S where the cash is (they think). I’ll see if I can find it, but one of the move incentives in the auction is to relocate OFF UHF and back onto the VHF spectrum. There are still a couple of doozy lawsuits to get through before this is ready to take off… at the lightning speed of government. He also said at the time that all this depended on them getting enough interest, and cash from the auction to bankroll this entire project. That includes buying out those broadcasters interested, and moving those planning to stay, neither are cheap. And if they (FCC) didn’t hit whatever number that was, the whole thing was off. This is NOT the band that the data providers really want, so it’ll be interesting to see how all this plays out.

(edit)
HERE is the Cliffs Notes high level version of the proposal. It's ironic that the proceeds from this sale probably won't pay a days interest on the debt.

In the last year or so a new station came on channel 2 in the Philly market. ME TV.

Dutch_12078 wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:

Winegard1 wrote:
The Rayzar air is not designed to receive Low-VHF (2-6)
It can receive High-VHF (7-13)

Eventually, most broadcasting towers will most likely switch over to UHF.

Where are you getting your information?

I wondered that as well, Jeff. In the Albany, NY market, station WXXA applied to the FCC and was granted permission to move from UHF channel 23 to VHF channel 7.

The band to be auctioned off (no longer for TV) was Low VHF (old analog channels 2 to 6). Channel 7 is in the remaining bands for TV. As we all should know regulations made by government do not always go as planned. Unless your a mind-reader no one knows when the regulated changes will be enforced by FCC, or modified by Congress.

SCVJeff wrote:

Winegard1 wrote:
The Rayzar air is not designed to receive Low-VHF (2-6)
It can receive High-VHF (7-13)

Eventually, most broadcasting towers will most likely switch over to UHF.

Where are you getting your information?

I wondered that as well, Jeff. In the Albany, NY market, station WXXA applied to the FCC and was granted permission to move from UHF channel 23 to VHF channel 7.

Winegard1 wrote:
The Rayzar air is not designed to receive Low-VHF (2-6)
It can receive High-VHF (7-13)

Eventually, most broadcasting towers will most likely switch over to UHF.

Where are you getting your information?

IAMICHABOD wrote:

SCVJeff wrote:

IAMICHABOD wrote:

MNtundraRet wrote:

As usual the promotional information supplied so far will confuse a lot of people. "omnidirectional" in this case does not mean getting mean getting signals in all directions (the absolute worst type of antenna for television). It means in only two directions (off front and back) which is a good thing, and an improvement over the current antenna.

As for which is better (Winegard IV versus Rayzar Air) I am waiting for more testing.

It looks like the information already has confused some, this antenna IS NOT "omnidirectional" it is BI-DIRECTIONAL.
From Winegards own website.
" The Rayzar Air's multi-directional reception pattern gives it more coverage than the Sensar, which will lead to less tuning required to receive programming. It is also optimized for UHF reception, which a majority of US over-the-air stations are broadcast on."

In its own Ads it is shown as a replacement for the Sensar.


I think in testing The Batwing may still be better for distance,as some have said but for my needs and application this is the best it can get.
Ether way Winegard wins.........:C

People write off VHF in general, and that's simply not the case nationwide. Living in sunny Southern California, you are obviously aware that channels 7, 9, 11, & 13 are alive and well. VHF is far from dead, and in fact it's not CBS, but there is another transmitter up and running on Channel 2 from Mt. Wilson.

Why yes I do know that VHF is alive and well here in Sunny So Cal.

While using my Rayzar here I had no problem getting Channel 7 KABC, Channel 9 KCAL, Channel 11 KTTV and Channel 13 KCOP Along with Channel 5 KTLA On all of these I can watch my local Sports and News.

KTLA is now on UHF 31. And you cant use LA as any kind of reference as how the antenna performs since Wilson is line of sight from almost anywhere being at 5000'+

Winegard1 wrote:
The Rayzar air is not designed to receive Low-VHF (2-6)
It can receive High-VHF (7-13)

Eventually, most broadcasting towers will most likely switch over to UHF.

What that really means is that in order to reach channels 2 to 6 (lowest being the hardest) that the RV must be closer to the transmitter. It might require aiming more carefully at the transmitter.

The expected range might be only 50 to 60% of High VHF channels broadcast in an area. As for when the stations are actually shut down? "Who knows". It's mainly a political matter.

The Rayzar air is not designed to receive Low-VHF (2-6)
It can receive High-VHF (7-13)

Eventually, most broadcasting towers will most likely switch over to UHF.

SCVJeff wrote:

IAMICHABOD wrote:

MNtundraRet wrote:

As usual the promotional information supplied so far will confuse a lot of people. "omnidirectional" in this case does not mean getting mean getting signals in all directions (the absolute worst type of antenna for television). It means in only two directions (off front and back) which is a good thing, and an improvement over the current antenna.

As for which is better (Winegard IV versus Rayzar Air) I am waiting for more testing.

It looks like the information already has confused some, this antenna IS NOT "omnidirectional" it is BI-DIRECTIONAL.
From Winegards own website.
" The Rayzar Air's multi-directional reception pattern gives it more coverage than the Sensar, which will lead to less tuning required to receive programming. It is also optimized for UHF reception, which a majority of US over-the-air stations are broadcast on."

In its own Ads it is shown as a replacement for the Sensar.


I think in testing The Batwing may still be better for distance,as some have said but for my needs and application this is the best it can get.
Ether way Winegard wins.........:C

People write off VHF in general, and that's simply not the case nationwide. Living in sunny Southern California, you are obviously aware that channels 7, 9, 11, & 13 are alive and well. VHF is far from dead, and in fact it's not CBS, but there is another transmitter up and running on Channel 2 from Mt. Wilson.

Why yes I do know that VHF is alive and well here in Sunny So Cal.

While using my Rayzar here I had no problem getting Channel 7 KABC, Channel 9 KCAL, Channel 11 KTTV and Channel 13 KCOP Along with Channel 5 KTLA On all of these I can watch my local Sports and News.

Yes VHF is still alive. I lost 2,6,12 with the Rayzr. The Sensar IV is still the far better and more versatile antenna at this point. IMHO