Tv antenna recommendations

[Hornnumb2]

My 2015 Coachmen came with a none rotatable antenna, would a jack antenna or other option work better? Thanks

[Durhamcutter]

I have a King Jack and it works better than my old wingard, You have to follow the directions when you position it to receive channels, if you do this it will work fine, our last trip I found out where the major cities were and used a compass to find out there direction , went inside and adjusted the antenna to that setting and I got 36 or 38 channels , It is a good unit but you kneed to follow the directions. Happy Camping

[Bill_Satellite]

SoundGuy wrote:

Bill.Satellite wrote:
I would avoid the Rayzar automatic unless you have no A/C units on the roof. Height is might and the Rayzar automatic does not have this advantage.

Yeah, you would think ... but I've read through the entire owner's manual for the Rayzar Automatic and it only provides reference to the unit's footprint and minimal distances from the edge of the roof & any other roof borne obstructions, all of which my Freedom Express can meet, and says nothing about an A/C unit obstructing performance. Since the Automatic is specifically designed for RV use I would have thought this would have been addressed if it were an issue ... but it's not, so considering there's hardly a TT, 5th, etc, out there without A/C on the roof I'd have to assume Winegard doesn't consider this to be a problem.

Yeah, I still do think! I also used to work for Winegard and I can tell you that Winegard cannot avoid the reality that all that metal inside an A/C unit will reduce or eliminate the UHF TV signal depending upon how far from the transmitter your RV is located. Installing an antenna that allows the elements to be above these obstructions will give you the best possible reception.
I would be happy to hear from anyone who disagrees that metal obstructions reduce the available UHF signal.

[SkiSmuggs]

When we arrive at a campground that has poor or no cable, I used my smart phone, go to www.tvfool.com, put in the address of the CG, check the results for direction and distance to the most stations, then use the compass app to aim my Jack antenna. A couple of times, I wasn't happy with results, saw the antenna point right into a tree or building, adjusted the aim and bingo!

[Chris_Bryant]

Here's an odd one- due to a variety of mounting issues, I just replaced a Winegard RS2000 - the larger round omni- with a new one. The old one had been hit and was in pieces. I put it back together as best I could, but it still did not work (every part was loose- 4 elements with coils between them and a circuit board, as well as a large component on the board).
Anyway- the only practical course was to simply replace it with the same thing, and hope the performance was adequate.
Plugged it in, did a quick scan- albeit with a different TV than I had been using, I got a dozen more channels than I got with either the Sensar IV or the Jack. If I have time, I will note the stations it got- I'm betting in this case I am close enough to other markets that a true omni might be good. Something I thought I would never say.

[TARDIS_TIME_TRA]

This is what I called a Bat Wing Antenna. It didn't work well at all.


This is the Winegard RS-3000 which replaced the Bat Wing

[LarryJM]

SoundGuy wrote:

westend wrote:
SVC Jeff, a Forum member that knows his broadcast electronics and has a very sophisticated signal analyzer tested the Winegard and Jack antennas. The Winegard was the better receiver. A lot of folks swear by the Jack antenna, stating it improved their reception over the Winegard. I believe Jeff.

Not to be argumentative but this is an oversimplified conclusion and isn't a matter of whether or not to believe SVCJeff's results. I've read his report and it's indisputable that analyzed measurements of a Winegard Sensar IV correctly pointed is more sensitive across both the VHF and UHF bands than is a King Controls Jack TV antenna. However, the reality is that many users find the Jack easier to use and from their perspective have it successfully receive more stations because it's not as directional as is the Sensar. As Jeff's results clearly demonstrate the Jack does work well in the UHF band but is not nearly so effective in the VHF band ... but most users wouldn't recognize this difference as many stations moved from VHF to UHF during the analogue > digital transition, meaning there are far more now transmitting in the UHF band than used to be the case. Many also wouldn't be aware that many stations that still do tune in on one's television as a VHF channel, say Ch 2, are in fact transmitting on a UHF frequency, referred to as virtual channel transmission. Many therefore conclude that the Jack antenna is the "better" of the two when in fact, as measured with a signal analyzer and the results carefully noted, the Winegard Sensar IV is clearly the more sensitive antenna. However, none of us actually watch TV using a signal analyzer and would prefer to put as little effort into tuning in signals as we can and because of that simple human fact the Jack antenna often is referred to by many as the "better" of the two antennas. And yes, I've owned both and although I currently run a Sensar IV with a SensarPro signal amplifier there are times I'd still prefer the Jack's ease of use. 🙂

IMO Sound Guy makes a couple of subtle and cogent comments regarding other not so directional and not as effective antennas such as the Jack as it pretains to the directivity and ease of use over the Bat Wing. In addition to the Wineguard Sensar Pro amp/meter I also use the DigiAir Pro 2 antenna meter/spectrum analyzer to fine tune my Bat Wing see pic ...



Based on a variety of locations and CGs over the last 5 years or so I have noticed that at times the Bat Wing can actually be a little tricky to aim for the best reception. At times I have found that the signal strength can vary over 4 db with very little (less than 5 deg antenna rotation) as seen on the Digi Air meter while the Sensar Pro system shows little to less than a 1 change in the signal strength in that mode. I attribute this as a combination of the 3db down beamwidth of the Bat Wing along with potential multi path signals and possibly reflective signal paths to the Bat Wing coupled with the distance to the radiating antenna. Also, you can actually have too much signal strength when dealing with digital TV signals where some TV tuners can difficulty in not pixelating due to the TV tuner being over driven. I'm not sure of the best solution, but potentially having two antenna systems such as the Jack and Bat Wing might have significant advantages where one should try and use the Jack first and only resort to the more capable Bat Wing when the signal level requires it. However, this is not really realistic for most folks not is it really cost effective or necessary most of the time.

Because of an issue with my installed Bat Wing several years ago during a road trip I purchased a ClearStream 2V antenna ....



and added the Wineguard Boost XT antenna amplifier that is co-located on the Clear Stream antenna for best performance. This "secondary" antenna system is mounted on a 12' fiberglass extension pole that I temporarily mount to my ladder and run into the trailer via the cable antenna connection. Not sure why and don't have a lot of data, but sometimes (maybe like 1 in 5 to 10 times) I have found the Clear Stream system preforms better than the BatWing mainly in solving excessive pixelating that the Bat Wing system is experiencing. While it's true there is no such thing as a "DIGITAL TV ANTENNA" there are definitely antennas that have been better optimized for digital signals where their multi-path and reflective signal resolution capabilites exceed those found in the more simplistic and older Bat Wing basically "DIPOLE" technology.

Just based on my experiences so far I am convinced that one could spend HUNDREDS or more $$$ in testing and accumulating various antennas, amplifiers, etc., etc. in search of that potentially unattainable "antenna Nirvana".

No real answers here, but just a little more "stuff" to "chew on":p

Larry

[SoundGuy]

Bill.Satellite wrote:
I would avoid the Rayzar automatic unless you have no A/C units on the roof. Height is might and the Rayzar automatic does not have this advantage.

Yeah, you would think ... but I've read through the entire owner's manual for the Rayzar Automatic and it only provides reference to the unit's footprint and minimal distances from the edge of the roof & any other roof borne obstructions, all of which my Freedom Express can meet, and says nothing about an A/C unit obstructing performance. Since the Automatic is specifically designed for RV use I would have thought this would have been addressed if it were an issue ... but it's not, so considering there's hardly a TT, 5th, etc, out there without A/C on the roof I'd have to assume Winegard doesn't consider this to be a problem.

[Bill_Satellite]

I would avoid the Rayzar automatic unless you have no A/C units on the roof. Height is might and the Rayzar automatic does not have this advantage.

[SoundGuy]

IAMICHABOD wrote:
I have to agree with Sound Guy, best may be what is easy and get the most that you can without constantly having to adjust the antenna for each channel.

I have found that the Rayzar is best suited to this for me. I get everything that is in range without constant adjustments.

That's actually a Rayzar Air ... the Rayzar is Winegard's indoor version. That may be my next try, 'though I am tempted by the Rayzar Automatic which promises fully automatic signal acquisition ... but it is expensive. :E

[SoundGuy]

Lynnmor wrote:
Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing

Tom_M wrote:
That company is located in Australia. I doubt that you will find one in the U.S.

Sure you will, under a variety of brand names. My 2014 Coachmen Freedom Express came with a Winegard Sensar III which I upgraded to a Sensar IV by adding a Wingman to it but anyone purchasing a current 2016 Freedom Express would instead have a fixed, bat wing style omni directional antenna from continu-us. I've got a spare CA-1500 in my workshop that I sat in the bay window of an upstairs bedroom for the last Superbowl so we could get the game out of Buffalo instead of Toronto and therefore see the US commercials. It's hardly "junk" and although not quite as sensitive as a Sensar IV it does work surprisingly well. I did get a bit of pixilating from time to time but since TV Fool indicates that transmitter is located 77.2 miles from my house as the crow flies I can hardly complain. Since this was winter my Winegard SensarPro was in the camper which at the time was in storage but my bet is if I'd used it as well to feed this antenna I'd have had no problems at all receiving a solid signal with this antenna.

[Lynnmor]

Tom_M wrote:

Lynnmor wrote:
Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing

That company is located in Australia. I doubt that you will find one in the U.S.

Here is where I got the idea that those antennas were being installed in the USA. Mystery Antenna

[Tom_M1]

Lynnmor wrote:
Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing

That company is located in Australia. I doubt that you will find one in the U.S.

[Lynnmor]

BarneyS wrote:

TARDIS TIME TRAVELER wrote:
We replaced our Bat Wing fixed TV antenna with a Winegard RS-3000 (fixed 360 deg.)a couple years ago. It works really well. sitting at home we went from 3 to over 20 channels.

I have never seen or heard of a "fixed" Bat Wing antenna. Are you saying you had a Winegard Bat Wing antenna that did not rotate? If so, it is no wonder you only got three channels, This is a new one for me.
Barney

Here is a bat wing style antenna that I believe might be the one in mind. Pretty much junk IMO.

Other Bat Wing

[IAMICHABOD]

I have to agree with Sound Guy, best may be what is easy and get the most that you can without constantly having to adjust the antenna for each channel.

I have found that the Rayzar is best suited to this for me. I get everything that is in range without constant adjustments.