question regarding overamplification

[mulliganman]

I brought out some guys to help me as I was changing my system a bit to incorporate a Tivo whole home setup and using Moca (so that my antenna signal is only going to a single four tuner Tivo Roamio). I have two Mini's in place that "borrow" a tuner from the Roamio when in use on two other televisions.

Now that I have described my setup here is the question. As we were setting this up, an installer wanted to see what the signal strength for a channel would be on my one tuner TV. It was at 98% but on the Tivo somewhere around 50-52%. He said I could not add an amp to bring up the signal strength of that or other channels for risk of overampage. Is that correct?

[mulliganman]

Here is what my signals look like: http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

Using a 91XG and an Antennas Direct to get all the green signals and Fox.

[ADTech]

Unless you're having actual problems with reception, do not waste time and effort just chasing numbers on the Tivo's screen.

[mulliganman]

Unless you're having actual problems with reception, do not waste time and effort just chasing numbers on the Tivo's screen.

Thank you for replying! Yeah, I don't want to spend time chasing numbers on the Tivo screen. What they said they were doing after getting the Moca network setup for Tivo was "balancing" the signals going to my Roamio (by the time they were done the signal strength had dropped some on most of my channels according to the Tivo signal strength measure). I had been experiencing some of what I might describe as "cutting out" on some stations prior to today. Still seen it a couple times on Fox this evening. I really was just wondering for my own curiosity since I thought because the signal strength numbers were lower I could "afford" some additional amplification and hopefully clear up some of the aforementioned problems.

[ZippyTheChicken]

your tv fool is very very good for the stations within 20 miles but you do have one conflict on channel 17 an amp might make both unviewable

If you are only trying to get those first 20 mile stations an omnidirectional with an internal amp would do well... if you are trying to keep the locals and bring in others then any chanel with a C next to it could get blown out by another.....

also for sake of conversation over amping can blow out a tv tuner over time

[ADTech]

There is no risk of any physical damage to a tuner from using a preamplifier. The power levels are too low. If the signals are over-amplified, reception will be lost, but the condition lasts only as long as the overload condition. Again, NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE.

There is no risk of conflict on channel 17, either. The F/B ratios of the antennas will easily prevent any issues there. Even if there was a conflict, you'd lose Branson's tourist channel and a repeater for Larry Rice's New Life Evangelistic center, assuming both are actually on the air.

the signal strength numbers were lower I could "afford" some additional amplification

So called "signal strength" indicators usually are not an indicator of signal power (they indicate decodability or error rate instead) and amplifiers can only increase the power level of signals at a small cost of signal to noise ratio. I haven't played with a Roamio yet, but its predecessor, the Premiere, had an advanced diagnostics menu that gave SNR readings and error rates. Perhaps the Roamio kept this feature. In any event, there is no use in trying to get above a certain threshold until you know what the minimum threshold for a specific make and model of a tuner might be. Perhaps the Roamio is a "20" or a "30" or a "55", or whatever, I don't know.

Maybe some modest amplification might help, but there's a whole bunch of information that hasn't been provided that is needed to analyze the distribution system.

[mulliganman]

So called "signal strength" indicators usually are not an indicator of signal power (they indicate decodability or error rate instead) and amplifiers can only increase the power level of signals at a small cost of signal to noise ratio. I haven't played with a Roamio yet, but its predecessor, the Premiere, had an advanced diagnostics menu that gave SNR readings and error rates. Perhaps the Roamio kept this feature. In any event, there is no use in trying to get above a certain threshold until you know what the minimum threshold for a specific make and model of a tuner might be. Perhaps the Roamio is a "20" or a "30" or a "55", or whatever, I don't know.

Maybe some modest amplification might help, but there's a whole bunch of information that hasn't been provided that is needed to analyze the distribution system.

It may sound strange but I am in a "wait and see" and "trying to confirm this is the best setup for picture quality/no picture issues etc." I attached a jpeg file of what my setup looks like after they got done. What the diagram does not show is a Tinlee AC7 combiner for Channel 49 Fox that they took out (for whatever reason they thought is was causing a loss of signal). My main purpose for bringing out the help was to create the moca network that is separate from the Tv signal network. But, I was wanting them to explore whether some additional amplification could help clear up some of the picture issues I had been seeing at times like small cutting out of the picture I have been seeing on the screen at times (the system had to be adjusted anyway to just send the TV signal to the Roamio connected television).

The Roamio has a "signal strength" meter that can be accessed as well as a "DVR diagnostics" menu. The DVR diagnostics goes beyond just signal strength and gives SNR and other information. So, I am guessing the information is the same as the Premiere. If you could tell me something to check for, I can do that.

I would like to go back to my original question about whether they or right regarding the amplification and thoughts on the setup in general.

ADTech, have I provided enough information to better analyze the situation?

[mulliganman]

Anyone got an opinion siince i posted the diagram?

[rabbit73]

I saw your last post before you edited it.

Most of the people that help with reception problems volunteer their time. Those that are paid to do it probably want to do something else in their free time.:)

There were probably many people that read your thread, but couldn't think of a suggestion that would help you.

In my case, I'm the care-giver for my wife who is not well, so I come here to forget about my problems.

You probably saw my previous post in your e-mail. I deleted it because I didn't have the time then to make a good analysis of your problem.

He said I could not add an amp to bring up the signal strength of that or other channels for risk of overampage. Is that correct? If he was talking about using an amp for your strongest and weakest signals, then it would possibly be overload by the strongest signals which would harm FOX by reducing its SNR from spurious signals created in the amp from IMD (intermodulation distortion). But, if you used the amp just for FOX, it wouldn't create that problem.

Thank you posting the diagram. I see that you are using a splitter in reverse to combine your 91XG and you C2V. This is not a good idea because both antennas can pick-up the same UHF channels, and when they arrive at the combiner they might interfere with each other. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

I really don't have a lot of information about your set-up other than what you have told us, but I'll try to second-guess your installer.

My suggestion would be to use the 91XG just for FOX with an amp to bring it up to the level of your stronger channels and then feed the output of the amp into your CH 49 TinLee AC7, along with the C2V.
http://www.tinlee.com/CATV-Signal-Injector.php?active=1
http://www.tinlee.com/PDF/AC7-customer%20general%20hookup%20Info.pdf

FOX probably will never be 100% reliable because it is a 2Edge signal.

But I see that you have been down this road before, and am beginning to feel like I have been sent on a Snipe Hunt, so I'm not sure I can add anything useful except to say what you have already been told:

Try each antenna alone to get what you want from it, and then figure out a way to combine them.

Maybe that's why you didn't get any answers this time.

Your previous threads:

help troubleshooting 23-Apr-2014, 7:02 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=14436

inconsistent reception of local Fox 6-Jan-2014, 1:01 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=14046

Need antenna help 7-Jun-2013, 5:35 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=13368

need help in Ozark, MO 24-Jul-2012, 12:46 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=10056

Why don't you talk to a TinLee engineer if your AC7 isn't doing what it's supposed to do?

[ADTech]

I'm trying to understand why, if they were there to help, they would take out the correct device, the AC7, and replace it with a more lossy, incorrect device, then add an el-cheapo amplifier like a Skywalker (probably a SKY38323). If they used that particular amp and a standard splitter, they probably introduced more than 10 dB of extra noise into the system on channel 49

Did they bring any test gear with them, namely a signal level meter or a spectrum analyzer, so they could actually see and measure the relevant signals before making changes to the system?

Look at the SBR reading for UHF 49 on the DVR diagnostics menu. Between that and the error numbers, corrected and uncorrected, it will give you an idea of what the tuners are experiencing.

[rabbit73]

I agree with ADTech.

mulliganman:

If you have any more questions about your antenna system, please use this thread instead of starting new one. It is hard enough as it is for us to make an analysis of your problem if it is spread out over four threads.

If you have trouble finding this thread again just click on your username mulliganman in any of your posts and click on Find More Posts by mulliganman in the dropdown menu.

[mulliganman]

I saw your last post before you edited it.

Most of the people that help with reception problems volunteer their time. Those that are paid to do it probably want to do something else in their free time.:)

There were probably many people that read your thread, but couldn't think of a suggestion that would help you.

In my case, I'm the care-giver for my wife who is not well, so I come here to forget about my problems.

You probably saw my previous post in your e-mail. I deleted it because I didn't have the time then to make a good analysis of your problem.

If he was talking about using an amp for your strongest and weakest signals, then it would possibly be overload by the strongest signals which would harm FOX by reducing its SNR from spurious signals created in the amp from IMD (intermodulation distortion). But, if you used the amp just for FOX, it wouldn't create that problem.

Thank you posting the diagram. I see that you are using a splitter in reverse to combine your 91XG and you C2V. This is not a good idea because both antennas can pick-up the same UHF channels, and when they arrive at the combiner they might interfere with each other. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

I really don't have a lot of information about your set-up other than what you have told us, but I'll try to second-guess your installer.

My suggestion would be to use the 91XG just for FOX with an amp to bring it up to the level of your stronger channels and then feed the output of the amp into your CH 49 TinLee AC7, along with the C2V.
http://www.tinlee.com/CATV-Signal-Injector.php?active=1
http://www.tinlee.com/PDF/AC7-customer%20general%20hookup%20Info.pdf

FOX probably will never be 100% reliable because it is a 2Edge signal.

But I see that you have been down this road before, and am beginning to feel like I have been sent on a Snipe Hunt, so I'm not sure I can add anything useful except to say what you have already been told:

Try each antenna alone to get what you want from it, and then figure out a way to combine them.

Maybe that's why you didn't get any answers this time.

Your previous threads:

help troubleshooting 23-Apr-2014, 7:02 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=14436

inconsistent reception of local Fox 6-Jan-2014, 1:01 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=14046

Need antenna help 7-Jun-2013, 5:35 PM
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=13368

Why don't you talk to a TinLee engineer if your AC7 isn't doing what it's supposed to do?

Yes I understand about others. That's why I changed my original follow up post. I didn't want it to be misunderstood.

Regarding the reverse splitter, that was one of my concerns I wanted feedback on. I place tremendous value on the feedback given here. That's why I wanted to bring it up. I'll explain more about their thinking regarding the Tinlee combiner in response to ADTech's post.

I don't really understand the SNR. If it would be helpful to understanding and resolving this, if someone could explain I'd appreciate it.

Regarding amplification for Fox alone I have these amps on hand or on the way to me: http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-HDA-200-Distribution-Amplifier-Adjustable/dp/B00133UTRC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414868695&sr=8-1&keywords=winegard+hda-200

http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-LNA-100-Boost-Antenna-Amplifier/dp/B00BN5Z2UY/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1414868718&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=winegard+lna+00

http://www.amazon.com/RCA-TVPRAMP1R-Preamplifier-Performance-Enhancement/dp/B003P92D9Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414868754&sr=8-1&keywords=rca+preamp

I actually have 2 of the RCA.

Regarding the Snipe hunt: I am sorry you feel/felt that way. I debated considerably before started the thread. I was fearful others might feel that way. But, quite frankly I didn't know where else to turn.

[mulliganman]

I agree with ADTech.

mulliganman:

If you have any more questions about your antenna system, please use this thread instead of starting new one. It is hard enough as it is for us to make an analysis of your problem if it is spread out over four threads.

If you have trouble finding this thread again just click on your username mulliganman in any of your posts and click on Find More Posts by mulliganman in the dropdown menu.

Yes I understand the request and have no problems with it. I thought it best to start a new one because I felt if I posted in one of the other threads it would be too difficult to follow.

[mulliganman]

I'm trying to understand why, if they were there to help, they would take out the correct device, the AC7, and replace it with a more lossy, incorrect device, then add an el-cheapo amplifier like a Skywalker (probably a SKY38323). If they used that particular amp and a standard splitter, they probably introduced more than 10 dB of extra noise into the system on channel 49

Did they bring any test gear with them, namely a signal level meter or a spectrum analyzer, so they could actually see and measure the relevant signals before making changes to the system?

Look at the SBR reading for UHF 49 on the DVR diagnostics menu. Between that and the error numbers, corrected and uncorrected, it will give you an idea of what the tuners are experiencing.

Their first job was to establish the Moca line separate from the TV signal line. But, I had also said that I was experiencing cut-outs (I don't know if they are best described as small pixelation or something else not just exclusive to any single channel). I thought maybe extra amplification might help since I had checked the signal strength percentages on my Roamio. In fact, I specifically mentioned trying the RCA TVPRAMP1R on the 91XG to see what effect that might have. Well when they began to attempt to address what I was describing they took the Tinlee combiner out of the picture feeling like it was causing part of the problem. They chose to use the Skywalker amp I guess because it was already in my attic (even though it was not in use) and felt it would fit the bill for just amplifying Fox (although I had a Winegard LNA 100 they could have used too). They had put it whatever was needed to get Cozi TV and Antenna TV broadcasting in my area so it was tough to try to argue with them....

Regarding what you asked about the Spectrum analyzer or signal level meter, they didn't have that with them. They made mention if this setup they put in (shown in the diagram) didn't work the only other thing they could try is some other antenna they have could be put up in my attic with the help of some signal tool they have.

[mulliganman]

Look at the SBR reading for UHF 49 on the DVR diagnostics menu. Between that and the error numbers, corrected and uncorrected, it will give you an idea of what the tuners are experiencing.

I went into the DVR diagnostics menu on the Roamio to get some info for all channels. Here is what it shown (as setup in the diagram I posted):

Channel 3-1 signal strength 55%, 22 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 66

Channel 3-2 signal strength 55%, 22dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 60

Channel 3-3 signal strength 57%, 23 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 81

Channel 10-1 signal strength 67%, 27dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 30

Channel 21-1 signal strength 52%, 21 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 132

Channel 21-2 signal strength 52%, 21 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 30

Channel 21-3 signal strength 52%, 21 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 60

Channel 27-1 signal strength 60%, 24 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 6

Channel 33-1 signal strength 60%, 24 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-2 signal strength 60%, 24 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 120

Channel 33-3 signal strength 60%, 24 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 45

Channel 49-1 signal strength 45%, 18 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 6

Channel 49-2 signal strength 45%, 18 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

[rabbit73]

antennas needed are determined by real channel:
http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=station_search&callsign=krbk

3.1 virtual is real channel 44
10.1 virtual is real channel 10
21.1 virtual is real channel 23
27.1 virtual is real channel 28
33.1 virtual is real channel 19
49.1 virtual is real channel 49

Do you have the corrected and uncorrected numbers reversed?

What happens if you connect each antenna directly to your TV instead of the Roamio? Does your TV have a signal strength indicator?

[mulliganman]

antennas needed are determined by real channel:
http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=station_search&callsign=krbk

3.1 virtual is real channel 44
10.1 virtual is real channel 10
21.1 virtual is real channel 23
27.1 virtual is real channel 28
33.1 virtual is real channel 19
49.1 virtual is real channel 49

What happens if you connect each antenna directly to your TV instead of the Roamio? Does your TV have a signal strength indicator?

Regarding the corrected and uncorrected numbers that is no mistake. Ever since I have had the unit I have never seen anything other than "0" on the RS Corrected column. What I put in the post is what the Tivo Roamio menu showed me.

They did check signal strength levels on the 1 TV while they were here. Since the TV only has 1 tuner it shows very high signal strength on all channels. I think Fox was somewhere near 97%. That's how they were arriving at the conclusion that little amplification should be used. If you need exact signal strength percentages to compare to what I posted for the Roamio I can provide that for all channels. Just let me know.

[rabbit73]

Just wondering about FOX. Does it behave better when the 91XG is connected directly to the TV instead of your present setup?

[mulliganman]

Just wondering about FOX. Does it behave better when the 91XG is connected directly to the TV instead of your present setup?

Just to be clear, you are saying how is Fox if the coax from the 91XG is just connected to the basement television (minus the Roamio)?

I haven't looked at that in a while but I assume it is probably similar or slightly better since we are only dealing with 1 tuner as opposed to 4.

If I need to connect it that way, I can. i will just need to do at a time when the spouse isn't trying to watch TV because I don't believe the Minis will get a TV signal if the Roamio isn't getting the feed directly.

[ADTech]

I'd like to take a closeup look at your precise location.

Follow the instructions in the fist three paragraphs of this post, then spot the marker on the location on your rooftop s accurately as possible where the 91XG is located. Then copy and past the coordinates that are under the lower left of the map to me in a private massage if you don't want them published in the clear to anyone. I don't need (or want) a plot, I need a very precise location so I can look at your surroundings, especially terrain and foliage in the direction of Springfield.

Swap out the Skywalker for the LNA100 up in the attic. It's got the best noise figure and overload characteristics of any of the amps you have on hand, but it mus be indoors only unless you make an outdoor enclosure for it and provide power. If your coax from the 91XG to the attic amp is more than 25l long, then it would be better to use the RCA as the amp with a very short (3') lad between it and the antenna.

On channel 49, your SNR is only 18 while digital reception, requires 15-16. It's teetering right on the edge of the "digital cliff" and it doesn't take much natural signal variation to push it over the edge into failure. Swapping the LNA100 for the Skywalker *should* improve SNR by 6+ dB and putting the AC7 back in in place of the splitter should pick up another 2-3 or so.

My suggested sequence of connections if using the RCA would be: 91XG > AMP (set to SEPARATE) UHF input > downlead >power inserter>AC7 ch 49 INPUT. The other input of the AC7 would get the C2V signal.

My suggested sequence of connections if using the LNA100 would be: 91XG > downlead (as short as possible) > LNA100>AC7 ch 49 INPUT. The other input of the AC7 would get the C2V signal.

I can tell you from practical experience that not every reception issue can be satisfactorily resolved. Often, one hits the limit of what can be reasonably or willingly done and it's finally time to accept the results. My own home's location (back side of a tree-covered hill) causes the summertime loss of reliable reception of several of the UHF channels from the antenna, but I've just learned to accept that they will be back come November. It does feel better when you stop beating your head against the wall, you know...

[mulliganman]

I'd like to take a closeup look at your precise location.

Follow the instructions in the fist three paragraphs of this post, then spot the marker on the location on your rooftop s accurately as possible where the 91XG is located. Then copy and past the coordinates that are under the lower left of the map to me in a private massage if you don't want them published in the clear to anyone. I don't need (or want) a plot, I need a very precise location so I can look at your surroundings, especially terrain and foliage in the direction of Springfield.

Swap out the Skywalker for the LNA100 up in the attic. It's got the best noise figure and overload characteristics of any of the amps you have on hand, but it mus be indoors only unless you make an outdoor enclosure for it and provide power. If your coax from the 91XG to the attic amp is more than 25l long, then it would be better to use the RCA as the amp with a very short (3') lad between it and the antenna.

On channel 49, your SNR is only 18 while digital reception, requires 15-16. It's teetering right on the edge of the "digital cliff" and it doesn't take much natural signal variation to push it over the edge into failure. Swapping the LNA100 for the Skywalker *should* improve SNR by 6+ dB and putting the AC7 back in in place of the splitter should pick up another 2-3 or so.

My suggested sequence of connections if using the RCA would be: 91XG > AMP (set to SEPARATE) UHF input > downlead >power inserter>AC7 ch 49 INPUT. The other input of the AC7 would get the C2V signal.

My suggested sequence of connections if using the LNA100 would be: 91XG > downlead (as short as possible) > LNA100>AC7 ch 49 INPUT. The other input of the AC7 would get the C2V signal.

I can tell you from practical experience that not every reception issue can be satisfactorily resolved. Often, one hits the limit of what can be reasonably or willingly done and it's finally time to accept the results. My own home's location (back side of a tree-covered hill) causes the summertime loss of reliable reception of several of the UHF channels from the antenna, but I've just learned to accept that they will be back come November. It does feel better when you stop beating your head against the wall, you know...

I believe the coax from the 91XG to the attic amp to be less than 25 feet, so I made the following change as you suggested: 91XG > downlead > LNA 100 > AC7 ch 49 input. The C2V went into the other input of the AC7. I did a rescan, then as soon as I had a chance a little while later I went back into the DVR diagnostics menu on the Roamio. Here are the results:

Channel 3-1 67% signal strength, 27 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 3-2 65% signal strength, 27 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 3-3 67% signal strength, 27 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 10-1 72% signal strength, 29 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-1 72% signal strength, 29 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-2 72% signal strength, 29 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-3 72% signal strength, 29 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 27-1 72% signal strength, 29 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-1 67% signal strength, 27 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-2 67% signal strength, 27 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-3 67% signal strength, 27 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-1 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected

I was surprised to see improvements in signal strength and the RS Uncorrected numbers across the board. I'm not sure if the "0" for the RS Uncorrected is just temporary because I had rescanned or not. I had never seen that on any channels other than 49-1 or 49-2 when looking at in the DVR Diagnostics menu on the Tivo Roamio (I had a similar setup just the LNA 100 after the AC7 combiner but didn't see the same results). Maybe someone else can jump in with an explanation of what they think is going on or if I should leave the LNA 100 as the only amplification on my setup.

[mulliganman]

I'd like to take a closeup look at your precise location.

Follow the instructions in the fist three paragraphs of this post, then spot the marker on the location on your rooftop s accurately as possible where the 91XG is located. Then copy and past the coordinates that are under the lower left of the map to me in a private massage if you don't want them published in the clear to anyone. I don't need (or want) a plot, I need a very precise location so I can look at your surroundings, especially terrain and foliage in the direction of Springfield.

Swap out the Skywalker for the LNA100 up in the attic. It's got the best noise figure and overload characteristics of any of the amps you have on hand, but it mus be indoors only unless you make an outdoor enclosure for it and provide power. If your coax from the 91XG to the attic amp is more than 25l long, then it would be better to use the RCA as the amp with a very short (3') lad between it and the antenna.

On channel 49, your SNR is only 18 while digital reception, requires 15-16. It's teetering right on the edge of the "digital cliff" and it doesn't take much natural signal variation to push it over the edge into failure. Swapping the LNA100 for the Skywalker *should* improve SNR by 6+ dB and putting the AC7 back in in place of the splitter should pick up another 2-3 or so.

My suggested sequence of connections if using the RCA would be: 91XG > AMP (set to SEPARATE) UHF input > downlead >power inserter>AC7 ch 49 INPUT. The other input of the AC7 would get the C2V signal.

My suggested sequence of connections if using the LNA100 would be: 91XG > downlead (as short as possible) > LNA100>AC7 ch 49 INPUT. The other input of the AC7 would get the C2V signal.

I can tell you from practical experience that not every reception issue can be satisfactorily resolved. Often, one hits the limit of what can be reasonably or willingly done and it's finally time to accept the results. My own home's location (back side of a tree-covered hill) causes the summertime loss of reliable reception of several of the UHF channels from the antenna, but I've just learned to accept that they will be back come November. It does feel better when you stop beating your head against the wall, you know...

PM sent with coordinates. Thanks!

[rabbit73]

Fox SNR looking much better in latest test. Is the 91XG aimed at Fox 349 degrees magnetic?

Maybe someone else can jump in with an explanation of what they think is going on or if I should leave the LNA 100 as the only amplification on my setup.When you removed the splitter used as a combiner, it eliminated the interference from the two sources of UHF signals created in the combiner which improved the signal strength and SNR. When you added the LNA 100 it increased the signal strength of Fox and improved the Noise Figure of the total system, which helps the SNR, as ADTech said. Only testing would tell you which preamp helps the most.

[mulliganman]

Fox SNR looking much better in latest test. Is the 91XG aimed at Fox 349 degrees magnetic?

Yes 91XG aimed at 349/350 degrees.

[mulliganman]

O.K. guys I have a new question. Today, 10-1 fluctuated off the 0 RS Uncorrected to around 60 which caused some of those picture issues I described early in this thread. So, I thought I'd get in touch with Tivo to see what they could say about it.

Their reply was to be without issue, signal strength on all channels needs to be in the 80-100% range, RS Corrected and RS Uncorrected has to be 0, and SNR Levels have to be in the 30-35 dB SNR. Is there any equipment that could put me at those levels?

[rabbit73]

There are two possible reasons for the increase in uncorrected errors for 10:

1. Local electrical noise interference on VHF-hi, which has higher noise levels than UHF. If the noise is constant, then you should also see a reduced SNR. I have a fairly strong CH 10 signal, but its SNR is only 16 because I also have a high noise level on VHF-hi.

2. Multipath interference for the CH 10 signal. This could be from static reflections, or it could be dynamic multipath from moving objects, like vehicles or aircraft, or when signals have to filter thru trees that are moving in the wind. A possible solution would be to use a more directional VHF-hi antenna to replace the V in the C2V. I think the C2V has an integrated UVSJ, so you might need an external UVSJ to combine the new VHF-hi antenna with the C2V.

IF the problem is multipath, and IF a more directional VHF-hi antenna helps, then another alternative would be to replace the C2V with a UHF/VHF-hi combo antenna.

Check out this theory with ADTech before doing anything drastic.

IIRC, the early TiVo tuners didn't handle multipath reflections very well.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=TiVo+tuner+doesn't+handle+multipath+very+well

You could test this theory in a low-cost way by connecting your antenna system (or just the C2V) directly to a TV and see if there was any difference.

OTA signals are constantly changing. If you want a real-time side-by-side comparison between two tuners, you can insert a splitter after the antenna system to feed the Roamio tuner and a TV, and feed a second TV connected directly to the splitter.

If something bad happens as shown on the TV connected to the Roamio tuner, you can see if it also happens to the TV connected directly to the splitter.

I forgot; where are your antennas located, inside or outside?

[rabbit73]

Their reply was to be without issue, signal strength on all channels needs to be in the 80-100% range, RS Corrected and RS Uncorrected has to be 0, and SNR Levels have to be in the 30-35 dB SNR.Those reading would be ideal, but your own tests have shown that for satisfactory reception the signal strength can be lower, and the SNR can be as low as 18 dB (15.5 dB at 0 NM is minimum). I do agree with them about the errors.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=840&stc=1&d=1415035118

Is there any equipment that could put me at those levels?Maybe, but it would be more expensive than necessary.

[mulliganman]

Those reading would be ideal, but your own tests have shown that for satisfactory reception the signal strength can be lower, and the SNR can be as low as 18 dB (15.5 dB at 0 NM is minimum). I do agree with them about the errors.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=840&stc=1&d=1415035118

Maybe, but it would be more expensive than necessary.

Thank you for addressing this! I told them I felt like it would be quite difficult for all OTA users to get to those levels to which they replied that they were sure there was equipment that would do it.

What I wasn't sure about is whether an increased SNR strength number correlated to no error messages (RS Uncorrected and RS Corrected numbers). That's a big reason why I wanted to know if those numbers they suggest are realistic.

While Tivo has the most superior OTA DVR, I feel their customer support for OTA users is lacking.

[mulliganman]

There are two possible reasons for the increase in uncorrected errors for 10:

1. Local electrical noise interference on VHF-hi, which has higher noise levels than UHF. If the noise is constant, then you should also see a reduced SNR. I have a fairly strong CH 10 signal, but its SNR is only 16 because I also have a high noise level on VHF-hi.

2. Multipath interference for the CH 10 signal. This could be from static reflections, or it could be dynamic multipath from moving objects, like vehicles or aircraft. A possible solution would be to use a more directional VHF-hi antenna to replace the V in the C2V. I think the C2V has an integrated UVSJ, so you might need an external UVSJ to combine the new VHF-hi antenna with the C2V.

IF the problem is multipath, and IF a more directional VHF-hi antenna helps, then another alternative would be to replace the C2V with a UHF/VHF-hi combo antenna.

Check out this theory with ADTech before doing anything drastic.

IIRC, the early TiVo tuners didn't handle multipath reflections very well.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=TiVo+tuner+doesn't+handle+multipath+very+well

You could test this theory in a low-cost way by connecting your antenna system (or just the C2V) directly to a TV and see if there was any difference.

OTA signals are constantly changing. If you want a real-time side-by-side comparison between two tuners, you can insert a splitter after the antenna system to feed the Roamio tuner and a TV, and feed a second TV connected directly to the splitter.

If something bad happens as shown on the TV connected to the Roamio tuner, you can see if it also happens to the TV connected directly to the splitter.

I forgot; where are your antennas located, inside or outside?

Yeah I want to hear from ADTech as well to see his thoughts. My antennas are roof mounted. There is no doubt inserting the Winegard LNA 100 to the 91XG line before that signal goes into the AC7 combiner improved things. I didn't expect it to raise the signal levels for all channels too....

I thought I remember reading that the Roamio had a pretty good tuner and was an improvement over the Premiere.....

I should also add I have noticed a small error number appear on 33-1 as well since implementing the changes ADTech suggested. But, it hasn't been as consistent as the 10-1 error number.

[rabbit73]

Yeah I want to hear from ADTech as well to see his thoughts.Me too; he is pretty sharp and knows what he is talking about. I have learned a lot from reading his posts not only on this forum but other forums as well.

In one of your earlier threads (http://forum.tvfool.com/showpost.php?p=41061&postcount=13) StephanieS told you to get a HAM (someone who as an FCC license to operate radio amateur transmitting equipment) to help you. I'm not there to help you, but I have been a ham for over sixty years. I'm now 81 and have been doing antenna experiments since I was 8 when I built my first crystal set and used my bedspring for an antenna. I would fall asleep with my headphones on listening to WOR AM 710 in NJ.

it would be quite difficult for all OTA users to get to those levelscorrect

Their readings are based on standards for cable systems for digital signals (QAM). The 8VSB OTA signal contains a pilot signal that helps with marginal reception; the QAM signal does not contain a pilot signal.

33.1 KSPR real channel 19 is your strongest signal. It could be getting close to an overload point somewhere in your system.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

Try the two tuner side-by-side comparison I suggested to see if it happens on both tuners.

[ADTech]

A few observations about the most recent discussions.

Tivo's statement of the required SNR, as rabbit73 already noted, is bogus. They were quoting QAM information, not ATSC. A perfectly tuned ATSC transmission plant rarely does better than 35 dB or so. However, since the Roamio does have four tuners, it would be safe to assume that they have integrated an input amplifier followed by a four port splitter into the front end of the tuner so as to best avoid splitter loss while doing their best to maintain a low input noise figure and a reasonable input signal power capacity.

I was surprised to see improvements in signal strength and the RS Uncorrected numbers across the board

I'm not. That's why I suggested the configurations previously, to get rid of system configuration errors that were degrading the SNR.

Is there any risk damaging a TV tuner sending that much signal to a single tuner?

Nope. Tuners are equipped to handle a lot more than your system can possible feed to it.

Upon receiving your coordinates, they resolve to the northeast corner of your roof where aerial photos show a satellite dish installed. I've surmised that you're using that existing mount for the 91XG.

Based on your coordinates, you're about 200' below the rim of a steep hillside across the creek valley. The signal path to KRBK crosses the highest elevation near the intersection of N 3rd and E. Indian Valley Dr. then drops towards you, then finally into the valley. It has been my experience and observation that the closer one is to the terrain obstacle causing the diffraction of the signal, the more inaccurate is the guesstimate of received signal strength from the TVFool simulation engine. I suspect that the signal forecasts for KRBK's signal is probably too optimistic.

In all, the one change I'd recommend making will be exceptionally difficult and that's getting the 91XG up to the peak of the roof of the second story instead of down low on the old satellite mount at the back of the garage. That would likely get you an additional 20+' of elevation and I'd expect it to help tremendously with your reception of KRBK. I'd also expect a serious level of difficulty getting it up there.

Today, 10-1 fluctuated off the 0 RS Uncorrected to around 60 which caused some of those picture issues I described early in this thread.

It is VHF being received by a simple not-very-directional dipole. Most likely due to impulse or electrical noise from nearby.

33.1 KSPR real channel 19 is your strongest signal. It could be getting close to an overload point somewhere in your system.

I think he's fine as long as he doesn't amplify the C2V's output. If we accept the simulator's estimate of about -25 dBm at the antenna, add in 8 dB for antenna gain, subtract 1-2 dB for the insertion loss of both the AC7 and integrated U/V combiner, subtract 3 dB of coax loss (about 50'), and subtract the Roamio's tuner noise figure (??), we're still well under -20 dBm signal power at the inputs to the individual tuners which would be expected to tolerate maximum signals up to nearly 0 dBm.

[mulliganman]

Try the two tuner side-by-side comparison I suggested to see if it happens on both tuners.

Is this the comparison you are suggesting (see bold):

OTA signals are constantly changing. If you want a real-time side-by-side comparison between two tuners, you can insert a splitter after the antenna system to feed the Roamio tuner and a TV, and feed a second TV connected directly to the splitter.

If something bad happens as shown on the TV connected to the Roamio tuner, you can see if it also happens to the TV connected directly to the splitter.

Is there any risk damaging a TV tuner sending that much signal to a single tuner? So you are taking about inserting a two out splitter after the output of my AC7 combiner (one output to the Roamio and one output to a 2nd televison)? If so, I can try but it may be tough to catch since I don't have 2 TV's in the same room.

[rabbit73]

Before I answer your last question, I need to be sure that I understand your present new setup that is working the best so far. Is there anything between the AC7 and the input of the Roamio other than the coax?

AC7 > coax ? ft > input of Roamio > TV

or in greater detail:

91XG > LNA 100 >
\
AC7 > Roamio > TV
/
C2V >
Are you trying to power the preamp thru the AC7, or doing it locally at the preamp location with its AC adapter?

[mulliganman]

A few observations about the most recent discussions

Upon receiving your coordinates, they resolve to the northeast corner of your roof where aerial photos show a satellite dish installed. I've surmised that you're using that existing mount for the 91XG.

Based on your coordinates, you're about 200' below the rim of a steep hillside across the creek valley. The signal path to KRBK crosses the highest elevation near the intersection of N 3rd and E. Indian Valley Dr. then drops towards you, then finally into the valley. It has been my experience and observation that the closer one is to the terrain obstacle causing the diffraction of the signal, the more inaccurate is the guesstimate of received signal strength from the TVFool simulation engine. I suspect that the signal forecasts for KRBK's signal is probably too optimistic.

In all, the one change I'd recommend making will be exceptionally difficult and that's getting the 91XG up to the peak of the roof of the second story instead of down low on the old satellite mount at the back of the garage. That would likely get you an additional 20+' of elevation and I'd expect it to help tremendously with your reception of KRBK. I'd also expect a serious level of difficulty getting it up there.



It is VHF being received by a simple not-very-directional dipole. Most likely due to impulse or electrical noise from nearby.



Yes, I am using existing satellite mounts for both antennas. I'm not sure my spouse would go for putting the 91XG up on the very highest point of the roof (at the 2nd story). But, let's say she did what would I need to put it up there? Since the changes you suggested the SNR fluctuates back and forth between 24 and 25 dB on the SNR level (60-62% signal strength).

For what its worth when I checked 10-1 and 33-1 today in the DVR Diagnostics menu both of the RS Uncorrected Levels were back at 0 (along with all other channels being at 0). It sounds like you are saying the fluctuations on those channels may be something that is beyond my ability to control or fix. Is that fair to say? Not sure if it's possible at this point or not since the house is finished but would quad shield RG6 possibly fix it?

[mulliganman]

Before I answer your last question, I need to be sure that I understand your present new setup that is working the best so far. Is there anything between the AC7 and the input of the Roamio?

AC7 > coax ? ft > input of Roamio > TV

or in greater detail:

91XG > LNA 100 >
\
AC7 > Roamio > TV
/
C2V >
Are you powering the preamp thru the AC7, or locally at the preamp location?

Your drawing appears to show the current configuration. The coax from the 91XG connects to the Winegard LNA 100 and from there into the single channel input of the AC7 combiner. The C2V coax connects directly to the other input of the AC7. The output to the Roamio TV is being connected with these F barrel connectors:http://www.amazon.com/10pcs-Frequency-Barrel-Connectors-Couplers/dp/B0037JB75S?tag=vglnkc3181-20

[rabbit73]

I also use the F81 connectors when a cable is too short. The ones you show look to be excellent quality. The cheap ones don't grab the center conductor of the coax very well. You can test an F81 by inserting a piece of 18 gauge solid copper wire, which is the same gauge as the center conductor of RG6.

Your 91XG is doing OK for Fox. I'm more concerned about what is causing the errors for 10.1 and 33.1 which would make a DVR recording less than enjoyable.

Are you trying to power the preamp thru the AC7, or doing it locally at the preamp location with its AC adapter?

I need to think a little more about my answers, and will come back later.

[mulliganman]

I also use the F81 connectors when a cable is too short. The ones you show look to be excellent quality. The cheap ones don't grab the center conductor of the coax very well. You can test an F81 by inserting a piece of 18 gauge solid copper wire, which is the same gauge as the center conductor of RG6.

Your 91XG is doing OK for Fox. I'm more concerned about what is causing the errors for 10.1 and 33.1 which would make a DVR recording less than enjoyable.

Are you trying to power the preamp thru the AC7, or doing it locally at the preamp location with its AC adapter?

I need to think a little more about my answers, and will come back later.

I agree about the DVR recordings! It might be a lot of trouble but do you think rewiring with RG6 Quad shield coax would "fix" it or is this something simpler?

I would like to answer your question about the preamp but I am afraid I unfortunately don't understand what you are asking.

[ADTech]

The LNA100 isn't a "pre-amp", it's a "back of the set" type of amp without the capability of using a remotely located power inserter. It has to be powered locally (to the amp) from a wall-wart. I suggested it because it has a very low noise figure and a very good tolerance to strong signals, both characteristics that I've verified. Besides, it was already on hand!

As for the intermittent errors on 10.1 and 33.1 from Fordland, I don't know. Might have been from something as mundane as a burst of noise from a switched device, might have been some wind-induced multipath that the decoder couldn't correct.

It's understandable about not wanting to move the 91XG up to the second floor peak should that be needed, it looks like it would be a very big job.

Swapping the C2V to a more directional 7-51 antenna would likely improve those SNRs, but the replacement antenna would be far larger. TANSTAAFL, you know.

Quad Shield won't make a difference.

[rabbit73]

The LNA100 isn't a "pre-amp", it's a "back of the set" type of amp without the capability of using a remotely located power inserter. It has to be powered locally (to the amp) from a wall-wart. I suggested it because it has a very low noise figure and a very good tolerance to strong signals, both characteristics that I've verified. Besides, it was already on hand!Thanks for the correction.

I had remembered that he ordered the AC7 with power pass-thru and was concerned about the location of the splitter. As you correctly pointed out, the LNA 100 has an AC adapter, but it doesn't have a power inserter, so it can't be powered thru the AC7.

[rabbit73]

Is this the comparison you are suggesting (see bold):

OTA signals are constantly changing. If you want a real-time side-by-side comparison between two tuners, you can insert a splitter after the antenna system to feed the Roamio tuner and a TV, and feed a second TV connected directly to the splitter.

If something bad happens as shown on the TV connected to the Roamio tuner, you can see if it also happens to the TV connected directly to the splitter.Yes
Is there any risk damaging a TV tuner sending that much signal to a single tuner? So you are taking about inserting a two out splitter after the output of my AC7 combiner (one output to the Roamio and one output to a 2nd televison)?Not that I can tell, but there is no way I can guarantee that nothing bad will happen if you try it. If you dropped your TV while moving it, you would curse me. I believe in non-destructive testing, not testing to destruction.

I always learn something from every one of my antenna tests.

You are already sending that much signal to your Roamio in your present setup. What I'm suggesting would send half as much to it:


91XG > LNA 100 > Roamio > TV
\ /
AC7 > 2-way splitter >
/ \
C2V > 2nd TV

What I'm looking for are some clues for further improvement.

You are now on your 5th thread for your reception problem. You have made a lot of progress, and have learned a lot, but have reached the point of diminishing returns as ADTech has implied. At the beginning, you got a large improvement with little effort; now a large effort is needed to get even a small improvement.

Only you can decide if the possible benefit of the test is worth the trouble and risk. I am curious about what is causing the errors, but not curious enough to force you to do something against your will.

If you do make the side-by-side comparison test, the results might be inconclusive.

If you want to quit at this point, and settle for the improvement you already have, that's fine with me.

There is another type of interference that might be causing you problems, which is from strong local signals from other services like paging transmitters, police, fire, and taxi.

[rabbit73]

I want to now address your original concern about damage from overload:

THREE TYPES OF OVERLOAD

There are three types of preamp or tuner overload, in order of increasing signal strength:

1. The strong signals almost cause enough IM distortion to interfere with the reception of weak desired signals, but the spurious signals are at or below the noise floor. This is the point that holl_ands uses in his preamp charts to obtain max SFDR (Spurious Free Dynamic Range). No damage will happen.

As the strongest signals continue to increase in strength, more of the weaker signals are damaged until you reach:

2. The strong signals cause overload to the preamp or tuner that makes it impossible to receive any signals. No damage will happen. The strongest signals are still there, but they can't be decoded because the IMD products have damaged them so that they contain more errors (high BER....bit error ratio/rate) than be corrected by the FEC (forward error correction).

3. The signals are so strong that the input transistor is toast. You are not likely to encounter OTA signals that strong, unless you live next door to a high power transmitter and you have your high gain antenna aimed at the transmitter's antenna.

As a general rule, tuners can tolerate stronger signals than preamps before overload. The difference in strength is approx. equal to the preamp gain.

You will find the preamp chart by holl_ands here:
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/files/ota

Scroll down to Modified solid signal Chart Comparing Preamps - RevB
It doesn't list all amps, but it gives you the general idea.

He also has a DTV Preamp Signal Overload Calculator - Rev M that calculates Max Input Signal to Maximize SFDR (Spurious Free Dynamic Range).

There is also a system noise figure chart.

[rabbit73]

And now to put some of your numbers into an estimate, I will use the guidelines from ATSC A/74:

ATSC Recommended Practice:
Receiver Performance Guidelines
Document A/74:2010, 7 April 2010
http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a_74-2010.pdf

5 RECEIVER PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
5.1 Sensitivity
A DTV receiver should achieve a bit error rate in the transport stream of no worse than 3x10E-6 (i.e., the FCC Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service, ACATS, Threshold of Visibility, TOV) for input RF signal levels directly to the tuner from –83 dBm to –5 dBm for both the VHF and UHF bands.

and from ADTech:
http://forum.tvfool.com/showpost.php?p=47613&postcount=31
I think he's fine as long as he doesn't amplify the C2V's output. If we accept the simulator's estimate of about -25 dBm at the antenna, add in 8 dB for antenna gain, subtract 1-2 dB for the insertion loss of both the AC7 and integrated U/V combiner, subtract 3 dB of coax loss (about 50'), and subtract the Roamio's tuner noise figure (??), we're still well under -20 dBm signal power at the inputs to the individual tuners which would be expected to tolerate maximum signals up to nearly 0 dBm.

As you can see, ATSC says that a tuner should be able to handle a signal as strong as -5 dBm and provide satisfactory reception. ADTech has calculated that the signal into your Roamio is under -20 dBm, which is 15 dB weaker.

for more than one signal ATSC says:

5.2 Multi-Signal Overload
The DTV receiver should accommodate more than one undesired, high-level, NSTC or DTV signal at its input, received from transmission facilities that are in close proximity to one another. For purposes of this guideline, it should be assumed that multiple signals, each approaching –8 dBm, will exist at the input of the receiver.Your signal is also weaker than that.

In my previous post about THREE TYPES OF OVERLOAD, a -5 dBm signal would fall between type 1 and type 2 overload, but closer to type 2.

When I was experimenting with my Apex DT502 digital to analog converter box just after it came out, I connected two preamps in series between the antenna and the Apex. When I looked at the monitor, there was no signal on the screen. At that time I didn't know as much about overload as I do now, so I didn't understand what was wrong. It was type 2 overload causing complete loss of reception.

The signal from the antenna was +20 dBmV, which is the way my SLM (signal level meter) measures signals, or equal to -28.8 dBm. The gain of the first preamp was 25 dB, which brings us up to -3.8 dBm. The second preamp gain was 15 dB, which is +11.2 dBm into the tuner. The tuner was not damaged. I haven't tried type 3 overload because I don't want a toasted tuner.

My newest TV is a SONY KDL32R400A. Using a splitter to send a signal to the TV and my SLM, I measured the signal level at 100 on the Diagnostics Screen signal strength scale and it was +40 dBmV, which is equal to -8.8 dBm. The engineer who designed the circuit must have been reading ASTC A/74.

In this country engineers use the symbol dBm for signal power; antenna installers and cable guys use dBmV. Other countries use dBμV (note the little tail on the u which means "micro"), which is dB microvolts. It's also signal power but its reference level is defined in microvolts. The conversion factor between dBmV and dBμV is 60, so 40 dBmV is equal to 100 dBμV, which is what the Sony engineer was thinking. 100 on the signal strength scale equals 100 dBμV.....nice!

I then inserted a variable attenuator (using the method described in the link in my signature) and brought the signal level down to dropout, which was about -85 dBm and noticed that the units on the signal strength scale were equal to about 1 dB. So, I was getting a TV and a signal level meter for the price of a TV.

My older SONY KDL22L5000 signal strength reading never gets up to 100 no matter how strong the signal. The reading is derived from the AGC (Automatic Gain Control that controls the sensitivity of the tuner) voltage. The newer SONY must have a different type of circuit, perhaps an RSSI chip like in cell phones which gives you strength in bars.

I had a chance to measure another R400A, and it gave me the same reading at 100 on the signal strength scale.

[mulliganman]

As for the intermittent errors on 10.1 and 33.1 from Fordland, I don't know. Might have been from something as mundane as a burst of noise from a switched device, might have been some wind-induced multipath that the decoder couldn't correct.

It's understandable about not wanting to move the 91XG up to the second floor peak should that be needed, it looks like it would be a very big job.

Swapping the C2V to a more directional 7-51 antenna would likely improve those SNRs, but the replacement antenna would be far larger. TANSTAAFL, you know.

Quad Shield won't make a difference.

I think I'm going to "sit" on this for a little while and observe seeing if I notice any patterns, etc.

While I do that, I would like to know if I decide to try to put the 91XG on the second floor peak what mounting equipment would I need to do that? It seems like when I had run a TV Fool report at different heights that somewhere in the 50 foot range made KRBK line of sight. I'm not sure if the 2nd floor peak meets that requirement or not, but it is still worth a consideration.

I was also wondering what are some of the better 7-51 antennas? I"m not sure I will be going that route but would like to know just in case.

I would also like to say thanks to both of you for your assistance and input to this point. It is greatly appreciated!

[ADTech]

The simulator calculates that the KRBK signal path switches from 1-edge to LOS between 105 and 110'.

However, given that the resolution of the digital elevation model used for the simulator may easily have 5 or meters of vertical error and the cell in which it places each elevation for the complete signal path evaluation is either a 30 or 100 meter square, it's far from a precision calculation.

An LOS signal path is not a requirement for solid reception (but it sure helps) and most people who use antennas rely on paths that calculated to 1-edge or 2-edge paths. The important thing is to get the right antenna into a spot that happens to coincide with a signal that's "good enough". Goldilocks, if you will.

[mulliganman]

The simulator calculates that the KRBK signal path switches from 1-edge to LOS between 105 and 110'.

However, given that the resolution of the digital elevation model used for the simulator may easily have 5 or meters of vertical error and the cell in which it places each elevation for the complete signal path evaluation is either a 30 or 100 meter square, it's far from a precision calculation.

An LOS signal path is not a requirement for solid reception (but it sure helps) and most people who use antennas rely on paths that calculated to 1-edge or 2-edge paths. The important thing is to get the right antenna into a spot that happens to coincide with a signal that's "good enough". Goldilocks, if you will.

I think I may have been getting that calculation mixed up with where KRBK is at 1 edge conditions according to the simulator. Are you not thinking that the peak of the 2nd story would be better for KRBK?

[rabbit73]

I would also like to say thanks to both of you for your assistance and input to this point. It is greatly appreciated!You are welcome! Glad we were able to make a big improvement in your reception without causing harm to you or your equipment. And, you are getting your money's worth from your AC7 because it is now doing what it is supposed to do.

The computer simulation is not that precise. The results that you are getting in signal strength, errors, and picture quality is what counts.

What does your tvfool report look like with the new coordinates? I think I only have the one you gave in post #2, or did I miss it?

[mulliganman]

You are welcome! Glad we were able to make a big improvement in your reception without causing harm to you or your equipment. And, you are getting your money's worth from your AC7 because it is now doing what it is supposed to do.

The computer simulation is not that precise. The results that you are getting in signal strength, errors, and picture quality is what counts.

What does your tvfool report look like with the new coordinates? I think I only have the one you gave in post #2, or did I miss it?

The ones I gave ADTech are really about the same. I just wish I could figure out why I am getting the error messages on ABC-KSPR channels. It is my strongest signal. I guess we have concluded the 10-1 is due to VHF being more susceptible to interference...

[rabbit73]

I just wish I could figure out why I am getting the error messages on ABC-KSPR channels.The signal might be too "hot" for the Roamio tuner. A simple test would be to insert a 2-way splitter between the C2V and the input of the AC7, which would attenuate the signals 3.5 dB; two splitters in series or a 4-way splitter would attenuate the signals 7 dB.

If you want some actual fixed attenuators:
http://www.mjsales.net/itemsearch.asp?FamilyID=221

They also have power passing attenuators, but you don't need that kind now.

I guess we have concluded the 10-1 is due to VHF being more susceptible to interference... Yes, electrical interference is greater on VHF. It could also be from multipath reflections coming from other directions because of the simple Vhf antenna. Again from ATSC A/74:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=847&stc=1&d=1415329859

A more directional VHF antenna would reject many of those reflections.

Note from the table that the greater the difference in time between the main signal and the echo (reflection), the weaker the echo must be to not interfere with reception.

How often do you see the uncorrected errors? Once-a-day for a few minutes, or more like almost constantly?

Do you see picture and audio problems on your TV only when you have errors?

[rabbit73]

My primary interest is in measuring signal strength and signal quality of DTV signals, so I wanted see what the Roamio Diagnostics Screen looked like.

I downloaded the Roamio user manual, but I didn't seen any screen shots:
http://assets.tivo.com/assets/resources/HowTo/RoamioSeries_VG_19AUG2013.pdf

I then did a Google search:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=TiVo+Roamio+SNR

This is for cable, but I think OTA is similar
Troubleshooting Digital Cable Signals (BOLT, Roamio, Premiere, Series3)

Checking signal lock and signal strength

1. Navigate to the Signal Strength-Cable screen:

From TiVo Central > Settings & Messages > Settings > Channels > Signal Strength-Cable

2. Press Select to display the Signal Strength Meter. A warning screen appears, telling you that using the Signal Strength Meter will stop all recordings.

3. Select OK, access this setting. The signals strength meter appears.

Checking the signal quality

1. Tune to a channel that is having a problem.

2. Write down the channel number and then press RECORD to lock the tuner to the channel (Series3 only: If two CableCARDs are installed, this also locks the tuner to the CableCARD).

3. Navigate to the DVR Diagnostics screen:

From TiVo Central > Settings & Messages > Account & System Info > DVR Diagnostics

4. Under Tuner 0, look at the channel number. If the channel listed is not the problem channel, press Chan Down until you see the information for Tuner 1 (if you have a 4- or 6-tuner TiVo DVR, you might need to continue scrolling until you reach the correct tuner for the problem channel).

and found this document from TiVo: (link no longer available, do Google search)
Troubleshooting Digital Cable Signals: Roamio Series, Premiere Series, and Series3 DVRs
http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/150

It had some images for the Diagnostics Screen. I copied the one for the errors, and edited it to make it a little lighter because the original was too dark:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=846&stc=1&d=1415328067

RS is short for Reed–Solomon:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=RS+errors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction

[mulliganman]

The signal might be too "hot" for the Roamio tuner. A simple test would be to insert a 2-way splitter between the C2V and the input of the AC7, which would attenuate the signals 3.5 dB.
Yes, electrical interference is greater on VHF. It could also be from multipath reflections because of the simple V antenna.

How often do you see the uncorrected errors? Once-a-day for a few minutes, or more like almost constantly?

Do you see picture and audio problems on your TV only when you have errors?

If I put the 2 way splitter on the C2V before the AC7 combiner, would I just "cap" the extra out?

I can't say that the errors are there every single time I check. I have been going into the DVR Diagnostics nightly to check. I just noticed tonight the RS Uncorrected is up around 80 or so on 33-1. It isn't a completely unwatchable picture or non-stop picture problem when the errors are there. The best I could describe it is as a lined pixelation cut out that appears on the screen that is quite annoying.

I guess if the splitter doesn't work the only option I would have left would be to replace it with some sort of directional antenna?

[mulliganman]

My primary interest is in measuring signal strength and signal quality of DTV signals, so I wanted see what the Roamio Diagnostics Screen looked like.

I downloaded the Roamio user manual, but I didn't seen any screen shots:
http://assets.tivo.com/assets/resources/HowTo/RoamioSeries_VG_19AUG2013.pdf

I then did a Google search:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=TiVo+Roamio+SNR

and found this document from TiVo:
Troubleshooting Digital Cable Signals: Roamio Series, Premiere Series, and Series3 DVRs
http://support.tivo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/150

It had some images for the Diagnostics Screen. I copied the one for the errors, and edited it to make it a little lighter because the original was too dark:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=846&stc=1&d=1415328067

Yes that is what the diagnostic screen looks like. I received a Wineguard HDA 200 amp in the mail today but I am assuming it wouldn't help anything although the amplification is supposed to be controllable via a nob or something. But, it may be "noiser" than the Winegard LNA 100. What do you guys think?

[ADTech]

The HDA200 quite a bit noisier than an LNA100. You shouldn't have any need for it.

[mulliganman]

The signal might be too "hot" for the Roamio tuner. A simple test would be to insert a 2-way splitter between the C2V and the input of the AC7, which would attenuate the signals 3.5 dB; two splitters in series or a 4-way splitter would attenuate the signals 7 dB.

If you want some actual fixed attenuators:
http://www.mjsales.net/itemsearch.asp?FamilyID=221

Yes, electrical interference is greater on VHF. It could also be from multipath reflections coming from other directions because of the simple V antenna. Again from ATSC A/74:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=847&stc=1&d=1415329859

A more directional VHF antenna would reject many of those reflections.

Note from the table that the greater the difference in time between the main signal and the echo (reflection), the weaker the echo must be to not interfere with reception.

How often do you see the uncorrected errors? Once-a-day for a few minutes, or more like almost constantly?

Do you see picture and audio problems on your TV only when you have errors?

Any adventage or disadvantage to using a splitter vs. an attenuator? I'm assuming the 3db attenuator would be the one to get if going that route...

[rabbit73]

I guess if the splitter doesn't work the only option I would have left would be to replace it with some sort of directional antenna? We really don't know what is causing the errors on 33.1. If it is from multipath reflections, then a more directional antenna might help. If the errors are caused by some other reason, like an unknown characteristic of the tuner, it wouldn't help.

When you started, most of the things you tried had a high chance of improving your signals. You are now at the point where they might not, and you must be willing to take that chance of failure. That's why I want you to try the simple things first.

If I put the 2 way splitter on the C2V before the AC7 combiner, would I just "cap" the extra out? The purists say that you should cap the unused port with a 75 ohm termination cap; practical experience says it doesn't seem to make much difference. Try it both ways to satisfy your own curiosity.
Any adventage or disadvantage to using a splitter vs. an attenuator?Not that I'm aware of except price and availability, assuming a good quality splitter.
I'm assuming the 3db attenuator would be the one to get if going that route... This is an experiment. You don't yet know how much attenuation would make a difference, if any. Think of it as an adventure, not a chore.

[mulliganman]

The signal might be too "hot" for the Roamio tuner. A simple test would be to insert a 2-way splitter between the C2V and the input of the AC7, which would attenuate the signals 3.5 dB; two splitters in series or a 4-way splitter would attenuate the signals 7 dB.

If you want some actual fixed attenuators:
http://www.mjsales.net/itemsearch.asp?FamilyID=221

They also have power passing attenuators, but you don't need that kind now.



When you mentioned attenuators, I realized I had 3 of these lying around: http://www.3starinc.com/fam-3_db_in_line_attenuator_pad.html

So, I went up and connected one to the C2V antenna and then connected that attenuator into the all channel input of the AC7 combiner. I then rescanned for channels on the Roamio. Some 8 dash channels I was getting dropped off (they may have been analog stations i am not sure). I then proceeded to go into the DVR Diagnostic menu of the Roamio and checked all channels I was receiving. First off, 33-1 changed from about 80 on the RS Uncorrected amount to 0. Another interesting change is that 49-1 and 49-2 shot up to 67% signal strength (up from 62%) and the SNR went up to 27 dB on those channels. All other channels reported before remained at the constant on both signal strength and SNR from what i reported in post 21. Channel 10-1 also had 0 for RS Uncorrected but it was that way earlier this evening before adding in the attenuator.

What do you guys think about that? Why the jump on 49-1 and 49-2? The jumps wouldn't have anything to do with losing the 8 dash channels would it?

I am going to check again tomorrow evening when i am home from work and see what the levels are reporting then.

[rabbit73]

Thank you for the report. That sounds like an improvement to me. Time will tell if it is a permanent improvement.

There is a story, that has many versions, about Thomas Edison when he was inventing the light bulb. He told a guest at his lab that he had, so far, done 1,000 experiments but had not yet perfected the light bulb. His guest asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "They weren't failures. I found 1,000 ways that didn't work, so I can now exclude them from consideration."

What do you guys think about that?
Take a look at this Google search for roamio signals "too hot":

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tivo+roamio+signals+%22too+hot%22

[mulliganman]

Thank you for the report. That sounds like an improvement to me. Time will tell if it is a permanent improvement.

There is a story, that has many versions, about Thomas Edison when he was inventing the light bulb. He told a guest at his lab that he had, so far, done 1,000 experiments but had not yet perfected the light bulb. His guest asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "They weren't failures. I found 1,000 ways that didn't work, so I can now exclude them from consideration."



https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tivo+roamio+signals+%22too+hot%22

Looks like I may have spoken too soon. I couldn't resist checking the levels this morning before I left for work. 49-1 and 49-2 were down to 52% (22 SNR) on the signal strength menu (from the 67% after I first inserted the 3 dB attenuator). I didn't expect to see that all (there were also a small amount of RS Uncorrected errors present on those two channels). Not sure if that was due to the attenuator or something else.

33-1, 33-2, and 33-3 had dropped a little in signal strength too but no signal errors.

I"m not sure what happened...

[rabbit73]

before I left for work. 49-1 and 49-2 were down to 52% (22 SNR) on the signal strength menu (from the 67% after I first inserted the 3 dB attenuator).Not a surprise. OTA signals constantly vary in strength, especially 1Edge and 2Edge signals.
Not sure if that was due to the attenuator or something else.It couldn't be from the attenuator because it was in the coax line from the other antenna.

Raising the 91XG as ADTech suggested might make 49 stronger.

Some 8 dash channels I was getting dropped off (they may have been analog stations i am not sure).KTKO-LP digital and KTKO-LP analog are both very weak. No surprise there either, because of their very negative NM numbers, based on your old report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

33-1, 33-2, and 33-3 had dropped a little in signal strength too but no signal errors.Good; that's what the attenuator was supposed to do.

How is 10.1 doing now?

[mulliganman]

Not a surprise. OTA signals constantly vary in strength, especially 1Edge and 2Edge signals.
It couldn't be from the attenuator because it was in the coax line from the other antenna.

Raising the 91XG as ADTech suggested might make 49 stronger.

KTKO-LP digital and KTKO-LP analog are both very weak. No surprise there either, because of their very negative NM numbers, based on your old report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

Good; that's what the attenuator was supposed to do.

How is 10.1 doing now?

10.1 continues to get sporadic RS Uncorrected Errors as well as 33-1 and 49-1. Nothing else seems to do that.

Oddly enough even with the attenuator, 33-1, 33-2, and 33-3 continue to be around 67% signal strength (which is what they are at after inserting the LNA 100 and before putting the 3 dB attenuator in the mix).

I don't mind losing the KRFT channels as there is nothing on there I watch anyway.

[mulliganman]

Not a surprise. OTA signals constantly vary in strength, especially 1Edge and 2Edge signals.
It couldn't be from the attenuator because it was in the coax line from the other antenna.

Raising the 91XG as ADTech suggested might make 49 stronger.

KTKO-LP digital and KTKO-LP analog are both very weak. No surprise there either, because of their very negative NM numbers, based on your old report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

Good; that's what the attenuator was supposed to do.

How is 10.1 doing now?

Do you have any other ideas I should try?

[rabbit73]

10.1 continues to get sporadic RS Uncorrected Errors as well as 33-1 and 49-1. Nothing else seems to do that.

Oddly enough even with the attenuator, 33-1, 33-2, and 33-3 continue to be around 67% signal strength (which is what they are at after inserting the LNA 100 and before putting the 3 dB attenuator in the mix).

I don't mind losing the KRFT channels as there is nothing on there I watch anyway.

Do you have any other ideas I should try?

Thanks for the report.

While the fix helped for a while, it looks like it was not permanent. Since the errors increased when the signals were stronger, this suggests to me that you should try increasing the attenuation between the C2V and the input of the AC7.

I think you said that you had 3 of the 3 dB attenuators. So, try 6 dB (they stack in series don't they?) for a few days, and then increase it to 9 dB before giving up on this idea. This should not affect the reception with the 91XG.

91XG > LNA 100 >
\
AC7 > Roamio > Basement TV
/
C2V > attenuator >

If you add the whole stack of attenuators to the input jack of the AC7 it might put too much strain on it. You can insert them in the middle of the coax with a short jumper coax and an F81.

Have you tried tilting the 91XG up a little to see if it improves the reception of Fox?

I'll stick around with you until I run out of longshot ideas to try, or until you give up and settle for what you have now.

Are the coax lines from the antennas grounded with grounding blocks that are connected to your electrical system ground? I'm thinking about interference with this question. It's also a good idea for electrical safety.

Do all your pieces of AC operated equipment have 2-wire power cords, or do some have 3-wire cords?

Are you using power strips that have provision for coax grounding? If so, are you using that feature? It's not always a good idea to do that.

The power strip will ground the coax shield if it is connected to a properly wired 3-wire outlet. But, the coax center conductor might pickup electrical interference from the other devices plugged into the strip, and the TV signal might be degraded if there is a surge protector connected between the center conductor of the coax and the shield.

What make and model TV is directly connected to the Roamio output? Does it have a signal strength indicator or a Diagnostics Screen? Are you using an HDMI cable, or what between them?

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=850&stc=1&d=1415676008

Virtual 33.1 KSPR-DT, real channel 19, is your strongest station, but its virtual number is not shown on your tvfool report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

[mulliganman]

Thanks for the report.

While the fix helped for a while, it looks like it was not permanent. Since the errors increased when the signals were stronger, this suggests to me that you should try increasing the attenuation between the C2V and the input of the AC7.

I think you said that you had 3 of the 3 dB attenuators. So, try 6 dB (they stack in series don't they?) for a few days, and then increase it to 9 dB before giving up on this idea. This should not affect the reception with the 91XG.

91XG > LNA 100 >
\
AC7 > Roamio > Basement TV
/
C2V > attenuator >

If you add the whole stack of attenuators to the input jack of the AC7 it might put too much strain on it. You can insert them in the middle of the coax with a short jumper coax and an F81.

Have you tried tilting the 91XG up a little to see if it improves the reception of Fox?

I'll stick around with you until I run out of longshot ideas to try, or until you give up and settle for what you have now.

Are the coax lines from the antennas grounded with grounding blocks that are connected to your electrical system ground? I'm thinking about interference with this question. It's also a good idea for electrical safety.

Do all your pieces of AC operated equipment have 2-wire power cords, or do some have 3-wire cords?

Are you using power strips that have provision for coax grounding? If so, are you using that feature? It's not always a good idea to do that.

The power strip will ground the coax shield if it is connected to a properly wired 3-wire outlet. But, the coax center conductor might pickup electrical interference from the other devices plugged into the strip, and the TV signal might be degraded if there is a surge protector connected between the center conductor of the coax and the shield.

What make and model TV is directly connected to the Roamio output? Does it have a signal strength indicator or a Diagnostics Screen? Are you using an HDMI cable, or what between them?

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=850&stc=1&d=1415676008

Virtual 33.1 KSPR-DT, real channel 19, is your strongest station, but its virtual number is not shown on your tvfool report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

I put two of the 3dB attenuators back to back connected to the C2V coax, an F81 connector, then a short piece of coax to the AC7. Oddly, it seemed to not really affect the signal strength of KSPR.

I know you asked about the virtual number of KSPR. ABC is 33-1, CW is 33.2, and Antenna TV is 33-3.

I don't know about the grounding blocks.

Your question about the AC operated equipment having 2 wire power cords or 3 wire cords I need some clarification on because I'm not sure what you are asking.

Are you using power strips that have provision for coax grounding? If so, are you using that feature? It's not always a good idea to do that. Yes I have this surge protector in use in the attic (but am unsure about any coax grounding provision): http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AAHT8AQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Here is a link to the model of the TV I have connected to the Roamio: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AVRJK4Y/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I know the TV has a signal strength indicator. I'm not sure about a Diagnostic screen. I'm sure all of my TV's tuners are "better" than any of the DVR's I have on hand (Tivo Roamio and a Channel Master DVR+, which is not in use). It seems all TV's seem to be that way...

I'm also sending you a Pm with the same coordinates I sent ADTech so you can get a better idea of location, obstacles, etc. I am also going to send you a second set of coordinates for something that I am wondering if it could be causing me interference.

I've asked this a couple of times but haven't gotten any responses so I'll ask again. If I moved the 91XG to the peak of the 2nd story of my home, what equipment would I need for mounting it there. I'm hoping you may be able to answer after looking at the coordinates I gave you.

[timgr]

...
I've asked this a couple of times but haven't gotten any responses so I'll ask again. If I moved the 91XG to the peak of the 2nd story of my home, what equipment would I need for mounting it there. I'm hoping you may be able to answer after looking at the coordinates I gave you.

Are you asking about the mechanical process of mounting an antenna on the roof peak?

If so, you'll need some sort of mast and a way to support it. This could be a gable end bracket, a tripod, a chimney mount, or a ridge bracket with guy wires. Mostly it depends on your roof configuration and which method most appeals to you.

Look here for some ideas about mounting brackets - http://www.antennapartsoutlet.com/ - I've bought from them. The shipped fast and had reasonable shipping charges.

[ADTech]

You can also use a satellite-style J-mount, but you're be restricted to a length of about a meter or so.

[mulliganman]

You can also use a satellite-style J-mount, but you're be restricted to a length of about a meter or so.

Good to know. I was wondering if you would be willing to check out these coordinates I sent rabbit and see if this might be causing the signal errors I continue to see.

The coordinates are 37.025154, -93.205803

[ADTech]

Don't know. That location doesn't appear when I do a tower search in the area. Assuming it belongs to one of the local fire protection districts, it will be operating in either the 150-155 MHz or the 450-455 MHz bands.

The only way you'd be able to positively correlate your intermittent decoding errors with some local RF transmission would be to sit there with a spectrum analyzer watching it and your diagnostic screen (or display) and see if you can spot some sort of broadcast that occurs at precisely the same time as a decoding error. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack unless you could narrow down any of the variables.

[mulliganman]

Don't know. That location doesn't appear when I do a tower search in the area. Assuming it belongs to one of the local fire protection districts, it will be operating in either the 150-155 MHz or the 450-455 MHz bands.

The only way you'd be able to positively correlate your intermittent decoding errors with some local RF transmission would be to sit there with a spectrum analyzer watching it and your diagnostic screen (or display) and see if you can spot some sort of broadcast that occurs at precisely the same time as a decoding error. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack unless you could narrow down any of the variables.

Well I see. I'm still looking for any kind of patterns with the errors, but I guess unless rabbit has other ideas that only leaves changing out the C2V to something more directional and see if that resolves these signal errors. Is that fair to say (since two 3dB attenuators have been added and the signal errors still occur)?

If it is, what would be some reasonable alternatives to consider? I really like the form and aesthetics factor of the C2V especially when coupled with the more directional 91XG and hate the idea of replacing it but the cutouts on 33-1, its subchannels, and 10-1 are driving me nuts. The only other channel that on a more rare occurance that has the occasional error is 49-1 Fox. Everything else always sits at 0 since switching to yours and rabbits suggestions.

The reason I have been inquiring more about how to mount the 91XG on the peak of the roof as you mentioned is because of the possibility of needing another directional to eliminate the errors on 33-1, its subchannels, and 10-1 while maintaining error free on the other channels. I thought it might be difficult to place two directional antennas where the two in use are located (not to mention being a bit of an eye sore).

[rabbit73]

but the cutouts on 33-1, its subchannels, and 10-1 are driving me nuts.Don't give up yet, I still have some more ideas for you to try.

You are not the only Roamio owner that has a love/hate relationship with his DVR:
Tivo Roamio Plus can be great, but check it out carefully before keeping it longer than 30 days
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/42-hdtv-recorders/1515287-tivo-roamio-plus-can-great-but-check-out-carefully-before-keeping-longer-than-30-days.html

Thanks for the exact coordinates. I ran your FM fool report to see if there were any strong FM signals that might be causing interference. With FM fool there is no link like there is for tvfool reports. I deleted the numbers after the decimal point to protect you, even though the report only shows two digits after the decimal point. I also ran some tvfool reports at different heights, but I will not post them unless you give me permission to do it. They also have truncated coordinates, so the approx. coordinates are pretty far away from your exact location. This is your FM signal report:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=851&stc=1&d=1415926465

When you make a reply to one of my posts, it is not necessary to quote the entire post. You can delete the parts of the quote that are not needed, or you can copy and paste what I said, highlight it and click on the quote icon at the top of the text box above the red A, which will add the quote box to your post.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=852&stc=1&d=1415927509

The only way you'd be able to positively correlate your intermittent decoding errors with some local RF transmission would be to sit there with a spectrum analyzer watching it and your diagnostic screen (or display) and see if you can spot some sort of broadcast that occurs at precisely the same time as a decoding error. It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack unless you could narrow down any of the variables.I agree with ADTech.

[rabbit73]

Well I see. I'm still looking for any kind of patterns with the errors, but I guess unless rabbit has other ideas that only leaves changing out the C2V to something more directional and see if that resolves these signal errors. Is that fair to say (since two 3dB attenuators have been added and the signal errors still occur)?No, it is not fair to say that. If you look at your original tvfool report you will see that the signals received by the C2V are very strong, with large Noise Margins. This means that you can add a LOT more attenuation before the signals become too weak for the tuners.
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

If I were there with you, I would want to add much more attenuation to see if the errors were gone while still having enough signal strength for the tuner. The reason I feel that way is because of the many comments by other Roamio users about it not being able to handle strong signals.

Take another look at this Google search for roamio signals "too hot":
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tivo+roamio+signals+%22too+hot%22
http://www.epinions.com/review/TiVo_tcd652160/content_457587068548?sb=1

A DVR that can record more than one channel at a time must have more than one tuner. As ADTech said, there must be a splitter in the DVR to send the signals to multiple tuners. He and I both think that the DVR uses a zero gain splitter, which is a splitter with an amp that adds just enough gain to make up for the splitter losses.

You have already discovered that the TiVo values for SNR are not realistic because they are determined for cable use, not OTA use. It is my opinion that there is a similar problem with the acceptable levels of signal strength for the Roamio. The tuners are probably similar to the tuners in a TV, but the zero gain splitter was designed for cable signals that have a much more narrow range of strength than OTA signals. The engineer who designed the splitter was designing it for cable signals, not OTA signals, which could mean that it was never meant to handle such strong OTA signals.

There are two tests that you can do to see if my theory has any merit.

The first test would be to get several each of 10 dB and 20 dB inline attenuators to add to your attenuator collection. Add more attenuation between the C2V and the AC7 and see what happens to the errors; never mind about the signal strength as long as there is enough left for the tuner to decode the signals for proper reception. You have plenty of NM available before you get down to 0 NM. And you have plenty of dBm Pwr before you get down to -83 dBm, which is where you will reach the "digital cliff."

Earlier you said:
So you are taking about inserting a two out splitter after the output of my AC7 combiner (one output to the Roamio and one output to a 2nd televison)? If so, I can try but it may be tough to catch since I don't have 2 TV's in the same room.I can understand how that might be difficult. Your basement TV is a 60-incher; it is a lot of work to move a large TV. That TV is a Panasonic VIERA TC-P60ST60, which is a nice TV with good reviews.

What I want you to do as a second test is to disconnect the antenna coax from the Roamio and connect it to the P60ST60 to see how it behaves with the same signals that were going to the Roamio. The results might give us a clue about what improvements can be made to your antenna system.

When I have more time, I will give you some more answers.

[mulliganman]

Don't give up yet, I still have some more ideas for you to try.

Thanks for the exact coordinates. I ran your FM fool report to see if there were any strong FM signals that might be causing interference. With FM fool there is no link like there is for tvfool reports. I deleted the numbers after the decimal point to protect you, even though the report only shows two digits after the decimal point. I also ran some tvfool reports at different heights, but I will not post them unless you give me permission to do it. They also have truncated coordinates, so the approx. coordinates are pretty far away from your exact location. This is your FM signal report:
.

It is okay to post the other tvfool reports if you think they will help. Let's just not try to reveal my exact location for the whole web to see.

[mulliganman]

There are two tests that you can do to see if my theory has any merit.

The first test would be to get several 10 dB and 20 dB inline attenuators to add to your attenuator collection. Add more attenuation between the C2V and the AC7 and see what happens to the errors; never mind about the signal strength as long as there is enough left for the tuner to decode the signals for proper reception. You have plenty of NM available before you get down to 0 NM. And you have plenty of dBm Pwr before you get down to -83 dBm, which is where you will reach the "digital cliff.".

So I need clarification here. Are you saying to use enough attenuators to account for 10 or 20dB total? If you are suggesting something else can you link to where I bought from before what I would need?

I have one more 3dB attenuator left that if I would add to what is already in use would total 9dB. So far, the only channel's signal strength affected is 33-1, 33-2, and 33-3.

[mulliganman]

[QUOTE=rabbit73;47796

Earlier you said:
I can understand how that might be difficult. Your basement TV is a 60-incher; it is a lot of work to move a large TV. That TV is a Panasonic VIERA TC-P60ST60, which is a nice TV with good reviews.

What I want you to do as a second test is to disconnect the antenna coax from the Roamio and connect it to the P60ST60 to see how it behaves with the same signals that were going to the Roamio. The results might give us a clue about what improvements can be made to your antenna system.

When I have more time, I will give you some more answers.[/QUOTE]

How should I do the comparison? When switching back to the Roamio go back into the Diagnostics menu to check Uncorrected Errors?

[rabbit73]

The quote didn't work because you left out the ] after the 47796.

There is no point in switching back and forth, because the signals would have changed by then, which is why I had suggested the two-set comparison which gives you a real-time comparison.

What I'm suggesting now is a second-best test because it would be difficult for you to bring a second set down to the basement, unless you have or can borrow a smaller set.

You already know what the Roamio does with the present antenna system. I want you to see what a TV does with the present antenna system.

So I need clarification here. Are you saying to use enough attenuators to account for 10 or 20dB total? I'm saying keep adding more, a little at a time, and see what happens, until there is no signal left. This is the test in the link in my signature.
If you are suggesting something else can you link to where I bought from before what I would need?I got mine here:
http://www.mjsales.net/items.asp?FamilyID=221&this_Cat1ID=266&Cat2ID=125

You got yours here:
http://www.3starinc.com/fam-3_db_in_line_attenuator_pad.html

It is okay to post the other tvfool reports if you think they will help. Let's just not try to reveal my exact location for the whole web to see.They already know it's Ozark, MO from your original tvfool report, and you gave the coordinates of the nearby firehouse in an open forum. I'll be extra careful. I'll just do an extract from the other reports.

[mulliganman]

The quote didn't work because you left out the ] after the 47796.

There is no point in switching back and forth, because the signals would have changed by then, which is why I had suggested the two-set comparison which gives you a real-time comparison.

What I'm suggesting now is a second-best test because it would be difficult for you to bring a second set down to the basement, unless you have or can borrow a smaller set.

You already know what the Roamio does with the present antenna system. I want you to see what a TV does with the present antenna system.

I'm saying keep adding more, a little at a time, and see what happens, until there is no signal left. This is the test in the link in my signature.

They already it's Ozark, MO from your original tvfool report; I'll be extra careful.

So how many 10dB and 20dB in line attenuators do I need to pick up? I'll add my last 3dB attenuator to the C2V while I wait.

i asked what I did about the TV comparisons because I was unsure how to compare since I can have error messages showing in the Diagnostics Menu on the Roamio yet it doesn't cause non-stop picture problems. It can even be a sparse picture problem yet quite annoying.

[rabbit73]

Just try different increasing values and see what happens. This is an experiment; we don't know how it will turn out. I can't afford the plane fare to come out there, so we are counting on you to do the experiments.

There should be no harm in adding more attenuation to the point of dropout. The screen will say no signal, which is what it would say if you removed the antenna coax.

So how many 10dB and 20dB in line attenuators do I need to pick up? I'll add my last 3dB attenuator to the C2V while I wait.You should have enough attenuators to equal the NM of your strongest signal ~ 65 dB. That would be two 10 dB, two 20 dB, and the three 3 dB that you already have.

I have to leave. I need to eat because my blood sugar is low, which makes me cranky as a two-year-old who needs a nap.

[mulliganman]

Just try different increasing values and see what happens. This is an experiment; we don't know how it will turn out. I can't afford the plane fare to come out there, so we are counting on you to do the experiments.

There should be no harm in adding more attenuation to the point of dropout. The screen will say no signal, which is what it would say if you removed the antenna coax.

You should have enough attenuators to equal the NM of your strongest signal ~ 65 dB. That would be two 10 dB, two 20 dB, and the three 3 dB that you already have.

I have to leave. I need to eat because my blood sugar is low, which makes me cranky as a two-year-old who needs a nap.

I ordered two 10db, two 20db, and single 6, 12, and 16 dB attenuators that should get here by the Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

So, I guess what I will do is continue adding attenuators until I lose all channels but Fox. As I add, I will record what I am getting in the DVR diagnostic menu along the way. I will post each recording here. I took a 6dB attenuator reading last night that I will post today and when I get home this evening I will post the 9dB readings (since I added my last on hand attenuator this morning).

[mulliganman]

Here are the 6dB Attenuator results:

Channel 3-1 25 dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, Rs Uncorrected 0

Channel 3-2 Same as 3-1

Channel 3-3 Same as 3-1 and 3-2

Channel 10-1 29 dB SNR, 72% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 18

Channel 21-1 29dB SNR, 72% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-2 Same as 21-1

Channel 21-3 Same as 21-1 and 21-2

Channel 27-1 29dB SNR, 72% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-1 25dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 90

Channel 33-2 25dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 84

Channel 33-3 25dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 202

Channel 49-1 25dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 Same as 49-1

Diagnostic readings were taken around 11:30 p.m. on 11-14

Not to compare apples to oranges, but I remembered my Channel Master DVR+ had a signal quality diagnostic so I connected to it on the same TV and got 100% signal quality even on the stations that I got errors on from the Tivo diagnostic. Kind of interesting.

[rabbit73]

Thank you for the 6 dB attenuator test with the Roamio DVR. Please try more attenuation when it is available. Start with 10, then 20, then 30, then 40, and then 50 dB.
Not to compare apples to oranges, but I remembered my Channel Master DVR+ had a signal quality diagnostic so I connected to it on the same TV and got 100% signal quality even on the stations that I got errors on from the Tivo diagnostic. Kind of interesting.Yes, very interesting. What does that tell you? Are you able to make any conclusions based on the CM DVR+ test?

Now, please connect the antenna to the Panasonic TV and tell us about the reception quality as a viewer; never mind about errors. If there were uncorrected errors in the Panasonic, it would affect the reception quality.

[rabbit73]

I now want to talk about grounding. There are three areas that overlap concerning grounding:

1. The NEC requires outdoor antennas to be grounded.
2. Grounding affects the performance of your equipment.
3. Grounding protects you from shock.

NEC REQUIREMENTS

I don't know about the grounding blocks.
The NEC requires the antenna coax (two in your case) to be grounded using a grounding block, which they call an ADU, Antenna Discharge Unit.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=grb2s&d=dual-grounding-block-with-dual-grounding-lugs

The grounding block should be connected to the house electrical system ground with 10 gauge copper wire.
The antenna mast should also be grounded with another 10 gauge copper wire connected to the house electrical system ground.
This is to drain any static buildup which, in theory, would reduce the chances of a direct lightning strike, and protect you from electrical shock. See attachments 1 and 2.

See these threads:
General Technical & Safety Information
http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=901

Grounding Antenna and Dish
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/1333059-grounding-antenna-dish.html

EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE

Your question about the AC operated equipment having 2 wire power cords or 3 wire cords I need some clarification on because I'm not sure what you are asking.Equipment that has a 2 wire power cord is not grounded by the cord; equipment that has a 3 wire power is grounded by that cord. If a piece of equipment with a 2 wire power cord is connected by a wire with a grounding shield to a piece of equipment with a 3 wire power cord, then the equipment with the 2 wire power cord is indirectly grounded.

Equipment like a tuner, a TV or an AC7 is expected to be grounded when in use to protect it from RF interference.
Are you using power strips that have provision for coax grounding? If so, are you using that feature? It's not always a good idea to do that. Yes I have this surge protector in use in the attic (but am unsure about any coax grounding provision):Your power strip does not have that provision.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AAHT8AQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

But this one does:
http://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-TLP1008TELTV-Protector-Outlet/dp/B0000AI0NC/ref=pd_sim_e_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=01CQ6CSR8VY9F6CDQD8J
You can see the two coax connectors at the center of the strip. Using those connectors for your antenna coax might expose it to interference from the other equipment connected to the strip and there might be internal surge protection between the center conductor of the coax and the shield that can degrade the signal.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY

When I was calibrating an Apex DT502 converter box for a friend, I received a mild shock when I touched the equipment and the metal strip on the front edge of the counter. The strip was grounded because it touched the metal stove top.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=856&stc=1&d=1416019951

All AC operated equipment has leakage current. Just because you can't feel it doesn't mean that it isn't there. All these pieces of equipment were connected together by a 4-way splitter, and were operating normally in that their individual leakage currents were within safe limits. But, since they were connected together their leakage currents added together, and that's why I felt a mild shock. The setup was using a temporary outside antenna that was not grounded. When I grounded the splitter, the leakage current went to zero.

Having three close calls with electrical shock, I consider the grounding block essential in any antenna system.

Voltage/shock issue
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/1255983-voltage-shock-issue.html
Getting A/C voltage on converter box's antenna input !
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1457594&postcount=1022
Equipment Leakage Current
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1457668&postcount=1025
Proper grounding can protect you from leakage current shocks
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=2165466&postcount=1099

[mulliganman]

I know you said a 10 dB results but I already had the 9dB results before that.

Here they are:

Channel 3-1 24dB SNR, 60% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 3-2 24 dB SNR, 60% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 18

Channel 3-3 24 dB SNR, 60% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 12

Channel 10-1 29dB SNR, 72% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 87

Channel 21-1 29dB SNR, 72% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-2 Same as 21-1

Channel 21-3 Same as 21-1 and 21-2

Channel 27-1 29dB SNR, 72% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-1 27dB SNR, 67% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 12

Channel 33-2 27dB SNR, 67% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 84

Channel 33-3 25dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 222

Channel 49-1 25dB SNR, 62% signal strength, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 Same as 49-1

Also saw on tivocommunity.com that RS is Reed Solomon. Digital transmission systems incorporate a scheme called Forward Error Correction which uses Reed Solomon error correction codes

RS Corrected indicates that the demodulator detected a block with an error in it and the RS code was able to correct the error. RS Uncorrected means the error was beyond the capability of the RS code to correct. An uncorrected block most likely will result in a pixelation or a dropout event.

[mulliganman]

Equipment like a tuner, a TV or an AC7 is expected to be grounded when in use to protect it from RF interference.
Your power strip does not have that provision.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AAHT8AQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

But this one does:
http://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-TLP1008TELTV-Protector-Outlet/dp/B0000AI0NC/ref=pd_sim_e_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=01CQ6CSR8VY9F6CDQD8J
You can see the two coax connectors at the center of the strip. Using those connectors for your antenna coax might expose it to interference from the other equipment connected to the strip and there might be internal surge protection between the center conductor of the coax and the shield that can degrade the signal.

]

I'm sure I will have more questions but are you saying I need that power strip you linked instead of the one I am using?

[rabbit73]

Also saw on tivocommunity.com that RS is Reed Solomon. Digital transmission systems incorporate a scheme called Forward Error Correction which uses Reed Solomon error correction codesThat is correct. However, the FEC has a limit to how many errors it is able to correct. Any further errors are uncorrected.
RS Corrected indicates that the demodulator detected a block with an error in it and the RS code was able to correct the error. RS Uncorrected means the error was beyond the capability of the RS code to correct. An uncorrected block most likely will result in a pixelation or a dropout event.Good explanation.

What is odd though, I haven't seen any corrected errors in your test results. If there were any errors to be corrected, they should first show in corrected errors, which is why I asked you before if you had corrected and uncorrected reversed.

So, I'm wondering is it that the Roamio tuner is not able to correct any errors, and all errors become uncorrected. Or is it that it is able to correct some errors, but it is not showing how many?
I'm sure I will have more questions but are you saying I need that power strip you linked instead of the one I am using?The one that you have is just fine, no problem.

[mulliganman]

I have some questions regarding the grounding. You linked to a grounding block but I found some I wandered would also work that I can get cheaper and quicker:

http://www.amazon.com/cable-Coaxial-Grounding-Amazon-64-1-N/dp/B001GTBFH6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1416072837&sr=8-5&keywords=grounding+block

http://www.amazon.com/PcConnectTM-F-Pin-Grounding-Block-2-5GHz/dp/B009Q892EM/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1416078761&sr=8-13&keywords=grounding+block

http://www.amazon.com/CNE41312-F-Pin-Coaxial-Grounding-Female/dp/B00IPZBZS8/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1416078761&sr=8-16&keywords=grounding+block

As far as actually, checking it and ensuring everything is properly grounded is this something a handyman could do? If so, is there something concise that I could give to him and say this is what I need done.

Another question is whether I would need anything else other than one grounding block?

[rabbit73]

Any of those three would be suitable. Note that the first one is an add-on item. Watch the shipping costs. I ordered an item listed on Amazon, but not sold directly by them. The seller said free shipping in the listing, but it wasn't free and he refused to refund shipping costs. I told Amazon I considered that a breach of contract so Amazon made up the difference by giving me a credit on my next item if sold by Amazon, which they did.

A talented handyman could do it if you show him the diagrams I posted, otherwise you need an electrician. The biggest problem is the connection to the house electrical system ground. He must not disconnect the house ground to connect your grounding block and mast ground wires, even for a moment. He should use a split bolt which makes it possible to connect your ground wires to the house electrical system ground.
I reviewed the NEC antenna grounding rules. It requires two grounding connections for an outdoor antenna. The mast must be connected to the house electrical system ground with a 10 gauge copper, 8 gauge aluminum, or 17 gauge copper coated steel conductor. The coax shield must be grounded using a grounding block that is also connected to the house electrical system ground. The NEC calls the grounding block an ADU (antenna discharge unit). The purpose of the grounding is not to withstand a lightning strike, but to prevent a buildup of a static charge on the antenna system which, in theory, reduces the chance of a strike, and for electrical safety. You can see a diagram of this on page 2 in the AntennasDirect link that GroundUrMast gave you in his General Technical & Safety Information thread:
https://www.antennasdirect.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/pdf/generic_instructions.pdf

If you use a separate ground rod for an antenna mast ground, then that ground rod must be connected (bonded) to the house electrical system ground with a 6 gauge copper wire. This is to prevent a voltage differential between the two grounds.
You can see a diagram of the separate ground rod version in the link that GroundUrMast gave you:
Antenna basics
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/basics.html
scroll down to The NEC requirement

If you plan on doing the grounding work youself, be sure not to disconnect the grounding connection for the house ground even for a second when adding your grounding wires. Use split bolts that allow you to add your wires to the house ground. There is a device mentioned by GroundURMast called an Intersystem Bonding Termination that allows you to connect your grounds without disturbing the house ground because it has a lay-in connection for the house ground conductor. I saw it being used on a recent This Old House show:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/LT1476.pdf

I don't know about the regulations in your area for an antenna installation. Some towns require an electrical inspector to give an OK for an installation; others don't seem to care. I would hesitate about asking your inspector about your installation until you find out what kind of person he is. Ask a local electrician about the inspector when he helps you with your ground connections to your electrical system.
Another question is whether I would need anything else other than one grounding block?Enough 10 gauge copper wire to connect the grounding block and mast to the house ground, and maybe one of these, which is called an IBTB, Intersystem Bonding Termination Block:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/LT1476.pdf

The ways of house electrical system grounding are many and varied:
http://www.dbsinstall.com/diy/Grounding-2.asp

[rabbit73]

ANTENNA MOUNTING 1
I've asked this a couple of times but haven't gotten any responses so I'll ask again. If I moved the 91XG to the peak of the 2nd story of my home, what equipment would I need for mounting it there. I'm hoping you may be able to answer after looking at the coordinates I gave you.Now that you been kind enough and trusting enough to give me your exact coordinates, I'm better able to consider other antenna mounting options. But I first need to have a better understanding of your present antenna mounting.
I chose the Antennas Direct 91XG and we mounted on a satellite dish mount pointed toward 350 degrees.
Let me clarify. I have a Clearstream 2V aimed at approximately 50 degrees. I have an Antennas Direct 91XG aimed at 349 degrees (this antenna is picking up Fox KRBK).
Is it safe for me to assume that you have your 91XG and C2V on the satellite mount that is located where the teardrop indicator is located on the satellite view of your house? It looks like it is on the East side of your house, about half way back from the front.

I don't have a photo of your antennas, so I'm trying to picture in my mind if you have both antennas on the same mast, and which is on top. I looked at some other map images to try to see how high your antennas might be, but I couldn't tell. My concern is whether the signals coming from the NE for the C2V are able to clear the roof of the house that is East of your house, because when I turn on the green signal lines for the interactive map, they cross the peak of the roof of that house.
What does the line of sight from the C2V look like on the signal path towards Fordland? Clear, a few trees, a lot of trees, houses, etc? I'm concerned that if reception isn't stable now and if there are trees, your reception ill fall off a cliff as soon as the trees leaf out.
I would say that the line of sight for the C2V is for the most part fairly clear.If the house to the East of you is in the path of the signals for the C2V, that might affect those signals. But, I think it is more likely that it is because those signals are too strong for either of your DVRs.
Reran the individual tests without the Holland 2FS used as a reverse splitter. Each antenna was separately connected to an "in" port on the CM3414 distribution amp.
1) 91XG picked up all channels. Initial testing showed no pixelation or issues.
2)C2V even picked up Fox KRBK (although at pitiful strength). Pixelation was visible on KSPR (33.1 ABC) on downstairs TV connected to Channel Master DVR+
After the individual tests I reconnected the 91XG to the CM3414 distribution amp solely to see how it would do over an extended period of time. This time I noticed noticed pixelation issues on KSPR (33.1 ABC), PBS (21.2), and KYTV (3.1 NBC) on downstairs television connected to Channel Master DVR+.
I would say that the line of sight for the C2V is for the most part fairly clear.
Been trying to trouble shoot. I previously mentioned one of the 3 TV's the signal (from the 91XG bypassing the splitter and being connected directly into the CM3410) is being split to was connected to this product: http://www.channelmaster.com/Products_s/329.htm#DVR+
Well when the coaxial cable is plugged into the back of the DVR+ that is where I am experiencing high amounts of pixelation/cutouts/etc. on some channels.
I thought I would try disconnecting from that device and plugging the coaxial directly into the TV instead. When I did that I didn't see any of the issues. So, I don't understand why that could be the case and would really like to try to resolve this.When you connected the antenna directly to the TV, it didn't seem to have any trouble with the signals, but both DVRs did. That tells me that the TV tuner can tolerate less-than-perfect signals which the DVR tuners are not able to do because they are more particular and fussy about the signals than the TV.

[rabbit73]

ANTENNA MOUNTING 2

When I was looking at the satellite map of your house on bing.com, I was able to rotate the bird's eye view to see the rear of your house. It is an old image (2011), so there might have been some changes. These are the options I see:

1. A 5 ft tripod mount at the peak of the roof at the rear of the house.
2. A thru-the-roof mast to your attic at the same location, similar to a plumbing vent pipe.

Both of these options would require roof penetration, which would need to be done with care to prevent roof leaks.

3. A mast at the back of your house that would run from the first floor deck up to above the peak of the roof. Its base would be on the deck. It would be fastened with an eave mount at the top, and several wall brackets below. It would allow you to adjust the aim of the 91XG from below using the "Armstrong method" before tightening the U bolts.

You could move just the 91XG first and leave the C2V in its present location for now. This would allow you to try other antennas there more easily.

The 91XG has a tilt feature which would allow you to tilt the front of the antenna up for higher angle incoming signals like your 2Edge Fox signal on CH 49. Your location is at the right end of the profile:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=858&stc=1&d=1416102509

Channel 49 is 683 MHz center frequency. Note the increased gain and more narrow angle at that frequency, which means the aim is more critical. Also note the notch at each side of the peak, which means a loss of gain at that angle.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=859&stc=1&d=1416102879

If you stay within the FCC height limits for your antenna, any neighbor or HOA that complained would have to prove that you weren't in compliance.
(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fcc+antenna+regulations
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

[mulliganman]

Rabbit,

I was looking at this link: http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/LT1476.pdf

Particularly, the second page and I believe I have that on the side of my house. When it is daylight tomorrow, i can check but just looking at the pictures on the second page I believe it to at least look pretty similar to what I have.

Is it safe for me to assume that you have your 91XG and C2V on the satellite mount that is located where the teardrop indicator is located on the satellite view of your house? It looks like it is on the East side of your house, about half way back from the front.

I don't have a photo of your antennas, so I'm trying to picture in my mind if you have both antennas on the same mast, and which is on top. I looked at some other map images to try to see how high your antennas might be, but I couldn't tell. My concern is whether the signals coming from the NE for the C2V are able to clear the roof of the house that is East of your house, because when I turn on the green signal lines for the interactive map, they cross the peak of the roof of that house.

Both antennas are using existing satellite mounts that were there already. The coordinates I gave you were pretty close to the area where both antennas are mounting. There is no mast in use that I am aware; just the satellite mounts.

[mulliganman]

Is it safe for me to assume that you have your 91XG and C2V on the satellite mount that is located where the teardrop indicator is located on the satellite view of your house? It looks like it is on the East side of your house, about half way back from the front.

I don't have a photo of your antennas, so I'm trying to picture in my mind if you have both antennas on the same mast, and which is on top. I looked at some other map images to try to see how high your antennas might be, but I couldn't tell. My concern is whether the signals coming from the NE for the C2V are able to clear the roof of the house that is East of your house, because when I turn on the green signal lines for the interactive map, they cross the peak of the roof of that house.

I've tried to upload some photos I took with my IPAD of the electrical system outside the house and the placement of the antennas. The pictures aren't the best but hopefully will do. The 91XG should be easy to make out and the C2V is just to the right of it in the photo.

[rabbit73]

Thanks for the photos; they help.

Pic 1: Left to Right, that looks like telephone, power, and internet. Is that correct? I don't see an IBTB.

Pic 2 & 3: I see the 91XG, but not the C2V. I'm confused about the location. I thought the antennas were on the east side of your house. It looks like you were on the east side when you took the photo and the antennas are on the west side. Maybe I have the wrong house.

[mulliganman]

Thanks for the photos; they help.

Pic 1: Left to Right, that looks like telephone, power, and internet. Is that correct? I don't see an IBTB.

Pic 2 & 3: I see the 91XG, but not the C2V. I'm confused about the location. I thought the antennas were on the east side of your house. It looks like you were on the east side when you took the photo and the antennas are on the west side. Maybe I have the wrong house.

Regarding Pic 2 and 3, I was standing to the east of the house when I took the photos. I think taking photos with the IPAD is the only option because of the small file size requirement of this website (I believe my camera makes the files too large), so I apologize that they are not the best. If you are having trouble making it out, the C2V is close (just to the right of the 91XG when looking at the photo; probably a couple feet or so in real world distance).

Regarding pic 1 from left to right, it is internet, power, phone. You may need to rotate the photo. Looks like you are right regarding the IBTB.

[mulliganman]

When you connected the antenna directly to the TV, it didn't seem to have any trouble with the signals, but both DVRs did. That tells me that the TV tuner can tolerate less-than-perfect signals which the DVR tuners are not able to do because they are more particular and fussy about the signals than the TV.

In earlier testing, yes I believe I found that to be the case. Ranking them I would put TV, Tivo Roamio, DVR+. The Roamio was a clear step above the DVR+ in the tuner category (and feature category for that matter).

Tivo support isn't going to be of any help either. When asking about the RS Corrected and RS Uncorrected with them today, they told me you want both to be 0 and anything that shows up in RS Uncorrected is beyond the ability of the Tivo Roamio to fix. When I pressed for what could cause the unfixable errors I was told it "could be any number of things including bad coax." I appreciated them narrowing things down so much!

[rabbit73]

In earlier testing, yes I believe I found that to be the case. Ranking them I would put TV, Tivo Roamio, DVR+. The Roamio was a clear step above the DVR+ in the tuner category (and feature category for that matter).Thank you for confirming my evaluation.
Tivo support isn't going to be of any help either.I agree. Can you get any help from other Roamio users on tivocommunity.com?
http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/index.php?
(I believe my camera makes the files too large),Many image editors will reduce file size. I use the ZoomBrowser software that came with my Canon camera. This site allows jpg attachments up to 500 KB, 1024 x 1024. I try to stay under 200K unless fine detail is needed, 800 wide.
I appreciated them narrowing things down so much! Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there?:)

Looking forward to your attenuator tests, with hopes of making your signals more acceptable to the Roamio.

[rabbit73]

Is it correct to say that your antennas are on the west side of your roof? If so, does the C2V clear the peak of the roof when aimed NE?

From you photos, it looks like the 91XG is already higher than the peak of your roof, and it has a clear shot at Fox. If that is true, then I see no point in moving it.

[rabbit73]

When you gave me the coordinates for your house, I assumed the teardrop indicator was not only was showing me the right house, but also the location of your antennas. It seems that my assumption was not correct.

I have sent a set of new coordinates to you by PM that are for the tvfool interactive maps feature, satellite view 45 degrees oblique. Please let me know if I have it right this time, or correct me.

[mulliganman]

When you gave me the coordinates for your house, I assumed the teardrop indicator was not only was showing me the right house, but also the location of your antennas. It seems that my assumption was not correct.

I have sent a set of new coordinates to you by PM that are for the tvfool interactive maps feature, satellite view 45 degrees oblique. Please let me know if I have it right this time, or correct me.

O.K. Another quick question, is it safe to assume the antennas are not grounded after looking at the photos I posted?

Also, I am going to begin to look at bringing out an electrician to ground it (assuming it isn't currently grounded). Is the only thing I need materials wise a single grounding block?

I know I asked before, but I'm just trying to double check and think about what I might need to have on hand that an electrician might not have.

[rabbit73]

I am not able to answer your quick questions. You have not given me enough information to give you good answers.

I don't live near you, so I can't drive over to your house. I can only go by what you tell and show us.

The first thing you need to do is answer my latest PM with the title Location 2. If you didn't receive that PM, I will send it again.

Then you need to answer a few more questions that I have.

Then I will answer.

If you are going to intentionally WITHHOLD the information that I need to give you GOOD answers, then my answers will be CRAPPY.

GIGO

I really want to help you, but you are making it difficult for me to do it.

With respect and good intentions,
rabbit

[mulliganman]

I am not able to answer your quick questions. You have not given me enough information to give you good answers.

I don't live near you, so I can't drive over to your house. I can only go by what you tell and show us.

The first thing you need to do is answer my latest PM with the title Location 2. If you didn't receive that PM, I will send it again.

Then you need to answer a few more questions that I have.

Then I will answer.

If you are going to intentionally WITHHOLD the information that I need to give you GOOD answers, then my answers will be CRAPPY.

GIGO

I really want to help you, but you are making it difficult for me to do it.

With respect and good intentions,
rabbit

I am not withholding anything. I saw your PM, but can't reply to it until I get home from work because the link you provided is blocked by my employer.

[rabbit73]

OK, I will wait until later. That will give me time to help my wife.

I have been neglecting her to help you.

[mulliganman]

Here are some new pics I took this evening. The side photos were taken on the right side of the home. The other pics were taken from the back of the home.

[mulliganman]

Got the attenuators today. Here are the 20 dB results (results taken at 6:50 p.m. on 11-17):

Channel 3-1 50% signal strength, 20dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 120

Channel 3-2 52% signal strength, 21dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, Rs Uncorrected 168

Channel 3-3 50% signal strength, 20dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 147

Channel 10-1 67% signal strength, 27dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-1 50% signal strength, 20 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 21-2 same as 21-1

Channel 21-3 same as 21-1 and 21-2

Channel 27-1 72% signal strength, 29 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-1 55% signal strength, 22 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 198

Channel 33-2 55% signal strength, 22 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 177

Channel 33-3 55% signal strength, 22 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 78

Channel 49-1 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 same as 49-1

[mulliganman]

Here are the 30 dB results (taken at 7:05 p.m. on 11-17):

Channel 3-1 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 60

Channel 3-2 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 162

Channel 3-3 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 78

Channel 10-1 50% signal strength, 20 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 6

Channel 21-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 210944 and fluctuating by the second

Channel 21-2 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 88064 and fluctuating by the second

Channel 21-3 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 57344 and fluctuating by the second

Channel 27-1 57% signal strength, 23 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 33-1 35% signal strength, 14 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 35302 and fluctuating by the second

Channel 33-2 32% signal strength, 14 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 48538 and fluctuating by the second

Channel 33-3 35% signal strength, 14 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 417585 and fluctuating by the second

Channel 49-1 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 same as 49-1

[mulliganman]

Here are the 40 dB attenuator results (taken at 7:40 p.m. on 11-17):

Channel 3-1 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 81

Channel 3-2 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 114

Channel 3-3 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 156

Channel 10-1 35% signal strength, 14 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 75769 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 21-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 69632 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 21-2 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 151064420 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 21-3 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 69632 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 27-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 69632 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 33-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 75776 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 33-2 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 800768 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 33-3 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 862208 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 49-1 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, Rs Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 same as 49-1

[mulliganman]

Here are the 50 dB attenuator results:

Channel 3-1 52% signal strength, 21 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 60

Channel 3-2 55% signal strength, 22 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 21

Channel 3-3 55% signal strength, 22 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 48

Channel 10-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 180352 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 21-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected in the millions and fluctuating by the second

Channel 21-2 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected in the millions and fluctuating by the second

Channel 27-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 75776 and huge fluctuations by the second

Channel 33-1 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected in the millions and fluctuations by the second

Channel 33-2 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected in the millions and fluctuated by the second

Channel 33-3 32% signal strength, 13 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 38912 and fluctuations by the second

Channel 49-1 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

Channel 49-2 62% signal strength, 25 dB SNR, RS Corrected 0, RS Uncorrected 0

[rabbit73]

Thank you for answering my PMs and for understanding my situation here in VA.

I think I haven't been getting enough sleep.

Excellent photos! They give me a much better idea of your antenna system. What was confusing me is that you have two roof peaks. The higher one on the west side, and the lower one on the east side above the garage.

Thank you also for the doing the attenuator tests so quickly. Your photos and tests were worth the trouble because they give us clues to solve your reception problem with the Roamio. I couldn't have done any better if I were there with you. Well done!

The 91XG seems to be doing well for Fox. I will need to take some time to study the results. My first impression is that the problem is NOT too much signal strength for the Roamio from the C2V, but a problem with the signal quality from the C2V; maybe multipath reflections.

Earlier in this thread, post 26, I thought the problem was multipath reflections.IF the problem is multipath, and IF a more directional VHF-hi antenna helps, then another alternative would be to replace the C2V with a UHF/VHF-hi combo antenna.

IIRC, the early TiVo tuners didn't handle multipath reflections very well.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=TiVo+tuner+doesn't+handle+multipath+very+well Later, I was convinced that the problem was signals that were too strong, based on what other Roamio users had posted. Now, based on your attenuator tests, I'm back to multipath.

That metal stack in front of the C2V couldn't be doing much good for the signals from the NE. I also wonder if they can clear the roof of the house to the East of you. If not, it would cause diffraction and scattering of the signals.

Any chance you can raise the C2V a little higher on that mount to clear the stack for a test?

Your antennas are in a "valley" between the higher roof on the west side of your house, and the roof of the house to your east. It doesn't seem to bother the 91XG because it can look out the end of the valley to Fox. But, the C2V can't see the transmitters from the NE because of the house to your east. How high is your C2V in comparison to the peak of the roof on the house to the east? Can the C2V see above that peak?

You probably will need to get the C2V out of that valley. The best location would be at the rear of the peak of your higher roof, mounted on an eave bracket. A 5 ft mast would probably do it if you didn't want to run the mast all the way down to the deck. A 10 ft mast would be needed if you wanted to stack the 91XG and the C2V on the same mast.

If you try the C2V in that better location, and it still has problems, then you will need to switch to a UHF/VHF-hi combo antenna for the signals from the NE.

The new coordinates you gave me are right for the 45 degree photo, but wrong for the 90 degree image. The green lines from the transmitters would also cross the peak of the house to the east for the 90 degree image if the indicator were moved to the location of your antenna. The default for the tvfool interactive map is 45 degrees for satellite images.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=870&stc=1&d=1416358491

[rabbit73]

Now, back to your grounding questions:

O.K. Another quick question, is it safe to assume the antennas are not grounded after looking at the photos I posted?I think it is safe to assurme that the antenna masts are not grounded, unless the dish guys grounded the satellite mounts. You would know if the coax shield was grounded.

When a dish was removed, did they leave anything like a grounding block? They must have grounded the coax some way.

[rabbit73]

Which side of your house is the power meter on?

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=869&stc=1&d=1416355861

Where do the coax lines from your antennas enter the house?

[rabbit73]

Also, I am going to begin to look at bringing out an electrician to ground it (assuming it isn't currently grounded). Is the only thing I need materials wise a single grounding block?It's only one grounding block, but it will accept two coax lines. There are also grounding blocks that only accept one coax line, that would be called a single. If your two coax lines enter the house at about the same place, then you can use the dual block. It should be mounted outside, just before the lines enter.

The electrician should be able to supply the 10 gauge copper wire used to connect the block to the house electrical system, as per the diagrams I posted.

Since you will have three 10 gauge wires, two for the masts, and one for the grounding block, an IBTB would make life easier for him. Most electrical supply houses will have it. Otherwise you will have to give him one to put near the meter.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=IBTB+intersystem+bonding+

https://www.google.com/search?q=IBTB+intersystem+bonding&biw=1024&bih=596&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=WeRrVL6WE8rvigLX2YCgBw&ved=0CEQQsAQ

He gets to decide how to connect the IBTB to your house electrical ground.
PRINT THIS FOR THE ELECTRICIAN:
http://www.dbsinstall.com/diy/Grounding-2.asp

[mulliganman]

Which side of your house is the power meter on?

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=869&stc=1&d=1416355861

Where do the coax lines from your antennas enter the house?

The coax from the 91XG and C2V enter through the roof into the attic.

The power meter is on the east side of my home (the same side that I took the side photos of the antennas).

I was looking at the surge protector I have in the attic when I was doing the attenuator tests and noticed the "grounded" light was on. Not sure why though. I don't have any grounding blocks that I know of.

[rabbit73]

The power meter is on the east side of my home (the same side that I took the side photos of the antennas).Good, that will make it easier for the electrician.

I was looking at the surge protector I have in the attic when I was doing the attenuator tests and noticed the "grounded" light was on. Not sure why though. I don't have any grounding blocks that I know of.That just means that the surge protector power strip was connected to a 3-wire outlet that is working like it should.

[mulliganman]

Any chance you can raise the C2V a little higher on that mount to clear the stack for a test?

Your antennas are in a "valley" between the higher roof on the west side of your house, and the roof of the house to your east. It doesn't seem to bother the 91XG because it can look out the end of the valley to Fox. But, the C2V can't see the transmitters from the NE because of the house to your east. How high is your C2V in comparison to the peak of the roof on the house to the east? Can the C2V see above that peak?

You probably will need to get the C2V out of that valley. The best location would be at the rear of the peak of your higher roof, mounted on an eave bracket. A 5 ft mast would probably do it if you didn't want to run the mast all the way down to the deck. A 10 ft mast would be needed if you wanted to stack the 91XG and the C2V on the same mast.

If you try the C2V in that better location, and it still has problems, then you will need to switch to a UHF/VHF-hi combo antenna for the signals from the NE.

I was looking right now at the peak of the house to the east of me. It is hard to tell because it is dark but looks to be close to even or so.

When you speak to the possible new location for the C2V can you link me to the bracket you are referring to? Also is there any way you could provide me a photo in a pm like before marked with exactly where you are suggesting?

Finally, do you think it would be better to get the antenna situation settled before diving into the grounding issue? I began looking and making a list of more directional UHF/VHF antennas I may ask for opinions on. Any antenna mounting/remounting is going to have to be done by outside help as I am not skilled in that area and promised my spouse I'd stay off the roof.

[mulliganman]

Now, back to your grounding questions:

I think it is safe to assurme that the antenna masts are not grounded, unless the dish guys grounded the satellite mounts. You would know if the coax shield was grounded.

When a dish was removed, did they leave anything like a grounding block? They must have grounded the coax some way.

I regretfully have to say I have no idea. I didn't do my own antenna installations.

[mulliganman]

Want to make sure this is the correct IBTB: http://www.amazon.com/Erico-Products-Intersystem-Bonding-Device/dp/B002FYN808

[rabbit73]

That looks like the right one that was in the data sheet I posted, and it got good reviews. It's hard to tell what it looks like when it is still in the box!
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/LT1476.pdf

If you look at the end of the box you will see an image of it.

Satellite image with green lines added to post #104, as per your OK.

I have to leave now; will be back when I have more time.

[rabbit73]

Earlier in the thread we were thinking about moving the 91XG to a better location, because Fox is your weakest signal that needs a high gain antenna and an amp.

But, since it is doing well at its present location, and the C2V isn't doing very well for the other stations, I think the C2V should be moved to the best location on your house.

That location is at the rear of the peak of the higher roof on the west side of your house. The signals from the NE will clear the house that is east of you when the C2V is there.

This is what the signal lines look like at 45 degrees Bird's Eye view:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=871&stc=1&d=1416448363

And this is what they look like at 90 degrees vertical view:

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=872&stc=1&d=1416448363
When you speak to the possible new location for the C2V can you link me to the bracket you are referring to?Eave brackets/mounts look like this:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tv+antenna+eave+mount+brackets
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=eave+mount+tv+antenna

Channel Master makes one, but I can't tell what gauge it is:
http://www.amazon.com/Channel-Master-CM-9030-Adjustable-Antenna/dp/B001RD703E

This one is 16 gauge:
http://www.3starinc.com/adjustable_eave_mount_antenna_mast_bracket.html

This one by Winegard is only 18 gauge:
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=SW-0012&ss=363299

Comments by hams about eave mounts:
http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php?topic=60884.0;wap2

I don't have any personal experience with this type of mount, but it looks like the important factors are the gauge of the metal and the strength of your roof at the point where it is fastened.

The board at the gable end is often called the fascia board, but the proper name is bargeboard. The fascia board is at the end of the rafters.

You will need someone with a very tall ladder to install that mount. A carpenter/contractor probably would be a good choice because he could reinforce the roof at that location if necessary. Tom Silva, of This Old House, would be my choice, but he would not be available.:)

I wouldn't put anything more than a small antenna on a 5 ft mast there. If you wanted to put both antennas there you would need a 5 ft tripod mount with a 10 ft mast on the top of the roof, which would require roof penetration of the fasteners. Another alternative for two antennas would be a tall mast, of 10 ft TV mast sections, that was fastened at the roof end and several places below with wall brackets, resting on your deck below.
Also is there any way you could provide me a photo in a pm like before marked with exactly where you are suggesting?Done.

[mulliganman]

I don't have any personal experience with this type of mount, but it looks like the important factors are the gauge of the metal and the strength of your roof at the point where it is fastened.

The board at the gable end is often called the fascia board, but the proper name is bargeboard. The fascia board is at the end of the rafters.

You will need someone with a very tall ladder to install that mount. A carpenter/contractor probably would be a good choice because he could reinforce the roof at that location if necessary. Tom Silva, of This Old House, would be my choice, but he would not be available.

I wouldn't put anything more than a small antenna on a 5 ft mast there. If you wanted to put both antennas there you would need a 5 ft tripod mount with a 10 ft mast on the top of the roof, which would require roof penetration of the fasteners. Another alternative for two antennas would be a tall mast, of 10 ft TV mast sections, that was fastened at the roof end and several places below with wall brackets, resting on your deck below.


O.K. So if I am understanding you right then I need an eavesmount and then either a 5 foot mast (if just moving the C2V) or a 10 foot mast and a 5 foot tripod mount (if moving both antennas). Is that correct?

I have some additional questions as well. How tall of a ladder are we talking? You said a carpenter so I am assuming a handyman would be a good choice. Correct?

My next question is regarding aim. How would the antennas be able to be aimed precisely (particularly critical for the 91XG) because its not like that part of the roof is able to be walked around on like where it is located now.

[mulliganman]

My last question for today has to do with alternative antennas. Since I will need to bring someone out (handyman?) to do this for me, I probably need to have an alternative antenna on hand if the error messages/multipath continues with the C2V. I have been researching some options which I will list below for feedback.

Channel Master CM 2016: http://www.channelmasterstore.com/Digital_HDTV_Outdoor_TV_Antenna_p/cm-2016.htm

Winegard HD7694P: http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-HD7694P-High-Definition-Antenna/dp/B001DFTGR4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416360010&sr=8-1&keywords=winegard+hd7694p

Antenna Craft HBU22: http://antennacraft.net/pdfs/HBU22_.pdf

Channel Master CM3016: http://www.channelmasterstore.com/Digital_HDTV_Outdoor_TV_Antenna_p/cm-3016.htm

I can't find specs for it but this RCA gets good reviews: http://www.amazon.com/RCA-ANT751-Durable-Compact-Outdoor/dp/B0024R4B5C/ref=cm_cd_ql_qh_dp_t

Primary consideration of course is performance, but size suitable for the mounting options and durability for weather extremes (here in MO we get quite a wide range of winter weather and other events). If I am overlooking a model, I'm willing to listen. I would like to get similar to better performance than what I am currently getting out of the C2V (again if I need to replace).

[rabbit73]

The coax from the 91XG and C2V enter through the roof into the attic.Which attic, the one above the garage or the one above the 2nd floor?

[mulliganman]

Which attic, the one above the garage or the one above the 2nd floor?

The attic above the garage is where the coax enters and the only attic I have access to.

[ADTech]

Simply relocating the C2V from its current location is likely all you need to do. It "appears" that it's below the level of your neighbors home, but, only someone standing on the roof would be able to be certain. Your situation illustrates the pitfall of using an existing satellite mount without taking the TV antenna's different requirements into proper consideration.

If that existing dish mount has support "legs" for a larger 18x24 dish, it's sturdy enough to install an extension pipe into it an raises the C2V up. Depending on the specific mount, you might easily get 5-8' of additional elevation which might clear the neighbor's rooftop.

Barring that, simply moving the antenna to the rear edge of the garage roof, closer to your deck, may allow the C2V a relatively unobstructed field of view for a good distance towards Fordland. I'd even be inclined to try it on your deck if that gets you out from behind the neighboring house.

One thing I did notice when I zoomed out from your rooftop view is that your signal LOS passes right through what appears to be a big tree in the back yard of the home on the corner across the street. If your reception issues correlate with wind or rain, then that tree would likely explain the issues.

Of the antennas you named, I'd only consider the second one plus the HBU33 as candidates. If you're going to have to go bigger, no point in trying to be subtle about it.

I can't find specs for it but this RCA gets good reviews:

That's because Voxx Intl doesn't seem interested in publishing any specs.

[mulliganman]

Simply relocating the C2V from its current location is likely all you need to do. It "appears" that it's below the level of your neighbors home, but, only someone standing on the roof would be able to be certain. Your situation illustrates the pitfall of using an existing satellite mount without taking the TV antenna's different requirements into proper consideration.

If that existing dish mount has support "legs" for a larger 18x24 dish, it's sturdy enough to install an extension pipe into it an raises the C2V up. Depending on the specific mount, you might easily get 5-8' of additional elevation which might clear the neighbor's rooftop.

Barring that, simply moving the antenna to the rear edge of the garage roof, closer to your deck, may allow the C2V a relatively unobstructed field of view for a good distance towards Fordland. I'd even be inclined to try it on your deck if that gets you out from behind the neighboring house.



Let's say that dish doesn't have "legs" is there a mount that could be used in its current location that would give it enough height there to alleviate any issues? Just wanting to consider all the possibilities.

I am aware of the tree that you speak about. I haven't noticed any patterns with wind or rain but I will watch for it.

[ADTech]

The only things that come to mind are a sat dish with the legs or perhaps a tripod with an adjustable leg or a non-penetrating roof mount. That kind of tripod or non-penetrating mount would be harder to find and would not be able to straddle the ridge of your hip roof, either would have to move out onto a flat but sloped portion of the roof away from the sat dish mount.

[mulliganman]

The only things that come to mind are a sat dish with the legs or perhaps a tripod with an adjustable leg or a non-penetrating roof mount. That kind of tripod or non-penetrating mount would be harder to find and would not be able to straddle the ridge of your hip roof, either would have to move out onto a flat but sloped portion of the roof away from the sat dish mount.

I know you suggested possibly moving the 91XG up to where rabbit is suggested earlier in the thread. What advantage do you see by doing that? In the projection model map using the correct coordinates I don't see much change either in signal strength or conditions. Just wondering what improvements you are aware of that the model isn't showing (since I might be rather difficult to get that aimed precisely if being moved). It would also necessitate the use of the RCA preamp as well wouldn't it (because of the longer coax run to the entry of the attic)?

[ADTech]

Small changes in the simulator in physical location or height are generally irrelevant due to the limited resolution, both vertically and in horizontal (X, Y) space, of the digital data that represents the terrain model.

As the disclaimer on TVFool clearly states, "Please understand that this is a simulation and can only be treated as a rough approximation. Reception at your location is affected by many factors such as multipath, antenna gain, receiver sensitivity, buildings, and trees - which are not taken into account. Your mileage may vary."

After a certain point, practical experience has to take over from mere numbers since the numbers are of limited accuracy. I've learned (the hard way) that putting the antenna where its odds are the best is usually the most direct path to success. Shortcuts done for expediency or convenience too often will result in compromised results.

[rabbit73]

Simply relocating the C2V from its current location is likely all you need to do.I agree, your 91XG is going OK.

"if it ain't broke don't fix it"

Barring that, simply moving the antenna to the rear edge of the garage roofThat's not far enough back.
I'd even be inclined to try it on your deck if that gets you out from behind the neighboring house.If I were there, that's what I would do. You would see me out there with your C2V on a 10 ft mast on your deck testing for uncorrected errors. I would want to know if the C2V in a better location would be enough. If you put up another UHF/VHF-hi antenna and it sends good signals to your Roamio, how would you know if the improvement was because of the change of location, or change to a new antenna?

If I didn't try the C2V on the deck, I would aim it NE out an upstairs window as a temporary test.
I'd only consider the second one plus the HBU33 as candidatesThe second is good; HBU33 or 22.....not much difference in specs.
CM3016 too big because it is for VHF-low.
If that existing dish mount has support "legs" for a larger 18x24 dish, it's sturdy enough to install an extension pipe into it an raises the C2V up. Depending on the specific mount, you might easily get 5-8' of additional elevation which might clear the neighbor's rooftop.Good idea; I didn't think of that.
Let's say that dish doesn't have "legs" is there a mount that could be used in its current location that would give it enough height there to alleviate any issues? Just wanting to consider all the possibilities.
A 5 ft tripod mount with a 10 ft mast might clear the roof.
VMP TR-60 60 Inch Roof Mount Tripod for Antenna Mast
http://www.3starinc.com/60_inch_roof_mount_tripod_for_antenna_mast.html
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=antenna+tripod+mount+vmp+TR+60
Solid Signal Availability: More Than Two Weeks
Amazon: Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available.
http://www.solidsignal.com/search.asp?q=tripod mount

TR-60 INFO:
http://www.videomount.com/pages/Satellite-and-Antenna-Mounts-and-Accessories/TR-Series/154

TR-60 instructions:
http://www.videomount.com/pages.php?download_id=797

A 10 ft mast is expensive to ship. Some Radio Shack stores in your area can get you one:
http://www.radioshack.com/antennacraft-10-ft-16-gauge-mast/1500298.html#.VG6gtIwo61t

I know you suggested possibly moving the 91XG up to where rabbit is suggested earlier in the thread. What advantage do you see by doing that?You would have to measure the difference.
After a certain point, practical experience has to take over from mere numbers since the numbers are of limited accuracy. I've learned (the hard way) that putting the antenna where its odds are the best is usually the most direct path to successVery true.
My next question is regarding aim. How would the antennas be able to be aimed precisely (particularly critical for the 91XG) because its not like that part of the roof is able to be walked around on like where it is located now.Interesting question. The initial aim can be done by using the green signal lines (90 degree vertical map, not 45 degree bird's eye) shown on the satellite map. They are based on true north, so you can aim the antenna at a landmark on that line. You can also use a compass with the magnetic azimuth.

I have found that the best aim for an antenna is not always where you have the greatest signal strength. I was doing some experiments using an Apex DT502 converter box that has two signal bars; one for signal strength and one for signal quality. When I rotated my CM4221 UHF antenna slightly to the right, the signal strength went down very slightly, but the signal quality increased a large amount.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=873&stc=1&d=1416535089

As you have already learned, what good is a strong signal if it also isn't a high quality signal with few or no errors?

You are now a member of the Antenna Measurements Club, because you passed, with flying colors, the initiation when you did the attenuator measurements. When you increased the attenuation, the SNR dropped down to below 15, and you saw an increase in uncorrected errors.

To make the final aim of an antenna, increase the attenuation until the SNR gets down to about 16, which is just above the "digital cliff." This is where the aim is most critical. Then rotate the antenna slightly each side of that aim to look for a increase in SNR, and a decrease in errors.

The see how well your 91XG is doing, try the attenuator test in its coax line between the amp and the input of the AC7. Add enough attenuation to bring the SNR down to 16 dB. This tells you how much "fade margin" you have at that location to deal with changes in signal strength.

[mulliganman]

I need the answer to the following questions:

O.K. So if I am understanding you right then I need an eavesmount and then either a 5 foot or 10 foot mast (if just moving the C2V) or a 10 foot mast and a 5 foot tripod mount (if moving both antennas). Is that correct?

And if trying the C2V from its current location a 5 foot tripod with a 10 foot mast? If possible, is there any way you can show me what this would like (like you did with the eaves mount) in a pm?

Is that all the materials I would need to provide whomever I call out for either location?

I need to see both to show the spouse. Right now, she is balking a bit at the idea of the eaves mount....

I can try the attenuator test on the 91XG and report back.

That Radio Shack 10 foot mast looks like it is on clearance for $5 in stores. I bet I can find a store that has one.

I have a lensatic compass. If I end up moving the C2V where is the best compass measurement to begin at?

[mulliganman]

To see how well your 91XG is doing, try the attenuator test in its coax line between the amp and the input of the AC7. Add enough attenuation to bring the SNR down to 16 dB. This tells you how much "fade margin" you have at that location to deal with changes in signal strength.

I did that test tonight. The answer to that question is 21 or 22 dB. 20dB attenuation gives an SNR of 18 dB. 23dB attenuation gives an SNR of 15 dB.

So what does this mean? How "well" is the 91XG doing?

[ADTech]

How "well" is the 91XG doing?

Well enough to leave it alone.

1 1/4" or 1 1/2" Galvanized EMT from your local home center makes an excellent and inexpensive mast. A 10' stick is usually around $10.

[rabbit73]

Any antenna mounting/remounting is going to have to be done by outside help as I am not skilled in that area and promised my spouse I'd stay off the roof.
I need to see both to show the spouse. Right now, she is balking a bit at the idea of the eaves mount....You have a very smart wife. She is looking out for your interests as well as her's. Treasure her.

For a happy marriage, it is important to consider the WAF, Wife Acceptance Factor.

The eave mount at the rear for the C2V would be more difficult to do, but it wouldn't be very noticeable from street. The 5 ft tripod with 10 ft mast on the garage roof for the C2V would be easier to do, but more noticeable from the street.

At this point, I'm fairly certain, but can't guarantee, that the C2V would do well on the eave mount at the rear. There are doubts about the tripod on the garage roof; it would depend on how well the C2V clears any obstructions. This is still an experiment.

The success of the Roamio installation depends upon a high quality signal from your antennas. It is now the tuner and recorder for 3 TVs. If you can't give it that, then you will have to change to another configuration where the Roamio is secondary, only for recording. You would use a 4-way splitter from the AC7 to feed 3 TVs and the Roamio.

I must confess, I have some reservations about your present configuration; it has no redundancy. If the Roamio fails, then nobody can watch TV, and nobody can record.

I'll try to do a "what it looks like" later. Would any of these images do the job?
tripod mount for tv antenna
https://www.google.com/search?q=tripod+mount+for+tv+antenna&biw=1024&bih=596&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9WFvVPH6L-j1iQLAloGQBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

eave mount for tv antenna
https://www.google.com/search?q=tripod+mount+for+tv+antenna&biw=1024&bih=596&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=9WFvVPH6L-j1iQLAloGQBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=isch&q=eave+mount+for+tv+antenna
I did that test tonight. The answer to that question is 21 or 22 dB. 20dB attenuation gives an SNR of 18 dB. 23dB attenuation gives an SNR of 15 dB.Good job on the test. The results are even better than I expected.

I agree with ADTech.....leave it alone.

If you put the tripod on the garage roof, I don't need to tell you not to put it in front of the 91XG, do I?

The tripod should be fastened to the roof by a roofer to reduce the chances of a leak. Better a leak on the garage roof than on the roof above the 2nd floor.

This is not an endorsement for Denny's, but he has a page
How to Install A TV Antenna Tripod Mount
http://www.dennysantennaservice.com/1475651.html

If you put a non penetrating roof mount on the garage roof to avoid fasteners through the roof, it would need to have adjustable pitch; most are welded at 90 degrees vertical. Also, you would need to put some weights on it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=non+penetrating+roof+mount&biw=1024&bih=596&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=lF5vVOmgL7GaigL8mYH4CA&ved=0CDYQsAQ

As ADTech said, your garage roof is not flat.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=874&stc=1&d=1416588837

I have a lensatic compass. If I end up moving the C2V where is the best compass measurement to begin at?Use your tvfool report. This is your original report:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd24362e8886d03

It shows 46 to 55 degrees magnetic for the C2V signals; try 50 degrees to start. Or, use a landmark from your 90 degree vertical view satellite image with the green lines to sight on.

I also ran tvfool reports with your exact address for the eave mount at the rear and the tripod mount on the garage roof. They also said 46 to 55 degrees magnetic. I will not post them without your permission.

[mulliganman]

I also ran tvfool reports with your exact address for the eave mount at the rear and the tripod mount on the garage roof. They also said 46 to 55 degrees magnetic. I will not post them without your permission.

It is fine to post them.

[rabbit73]

eave mount at rear:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd243b50c430506


tripod mount on garage roof:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd243741fc3993f

O.K. So if I am understanding you right then I need an eavesmount and then either a 5 foot or 10 foot mast (if just moving the C2V) or a 10 foot mast and a 5 foot tripod mount (if moving both antennas). Is that correct? Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the questions. I had to take my wife to the doctor at Urgent Care this morning.

You now have two choices:

1. eave mount and 5 ft mast for the C2V at the rear of the upper roof

OR

2. 5 ft tripod and 10 ft mast for the C2V on the garage roof

The 10 ft mast is inserted several ft into the top of the tripod mount

The 91XG is no longer involved because it is staying right where it is now.

Did I tell you what you wanted to know?

[mulliganman]

eave mount at rear:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd243b50c430506


tripod mount on garage roof:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dd243741fc3993f

Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the questions. I had to take my wife to the doctor at Urgent Care this morning.

You now have two choices:

1. eave mount and 5 ft mast for the C2V at the rear of the upper roof

OR

2. 5 ft tripod and 10 ft mast for the C2V on the garage roof

The 10 ft mast is inserted several ft into the top of the tripod mount

The 91XG is no longer involved because it is staying right where it is now.

Did I tell you what you wanted to know?

Yes thank you! I will take a look at the picture links when I have a bit more time. I feel the same way about the questions. That's why I am trying to simplify what I need to know. I was mainly wanting to know if the 10 foot mast should be used if going with the eaves mount. The main reason being Radio Shack has them clearanced for $5.

Sorry to hear about your wife. Hopefully, she is doing better now.

[rabbit73]

I was mainly wanting to know if the 10 foot mast should be used if going with the eaves mount.The eave mount is not sturdy enough for a 10 ft mast; 5 ft max for eave mount.

So, if the price is right, why not two, because I have another idea for you to try.

version in attachment 3 would be without rotor

[mulliganman]

The eave mount is not sturdy enough for a 10 ft mast; 5 ft max for eave mount.

So, if the price is right, why not two, because I have another idea for you to try.

version in attachment 3 would be without rotor

I picked up a 5 foot mount and two of the 10 foot mounts. What is the other idea you have?

[rabbit73]

I picked up a 5 foot mount and two of the 10 foot mounts.HUH? WHAT?

Do you mean mast instead of mount?:confused:

I didn't know any of the options (eave mount or tripod with mast) involved the use of a rotor.Neither do I.

That third attachment is a tripod with a mast inserted. You wanted to know what a tripod with a mast inserted would look like to show your wife. That is the closest image that I could find outside of attachment No. 2. Disregard the rotor. You don't need one for the C2V. The image just happed to have a rotor.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.

[mulliganman]

HUH? WHAT?

Do you mean mast instead of mount?:confused:

Neither do I.

That third attachment is a tripod with a mast inserted. You wanted to know what a tripod with a mast inserted would look like to show your wife. That is the closest image that I could find outside of attachment No. 2. Disregard the rotor. You don't need one for the C2V. The image just happed to have a rotor.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.

Oops! Yes I meant mast! No worries. I'm curious what the other experiment you referred to earlier was.

If I get an eaves mount, I'm leaning toward this one: http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-SW-0012-Gable-Mount-Antenna/dp/B001DFTGUQ/ref=cm_cd_al_qh_dp_t

It should be the same one you linked to at Solid Signal but I can get free shipping on it through Amazon.

Also want to be sure that if the C2V fails that the eaves mount and mast I purchased could safely and adequately hold this:
http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-HD7694P-High-Definition-Antenna/dp/B001DFTGR4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416360010&sr=8-1&keywords=winegard+hd7694p

[rabbit73]

What is the other idea you have?Your wife is probably concerned about the appearance of the house from the street, because that is when a visitor gets the first impression of your home.

To me, all antennas are beautiful, but I can understand her feelings.

I am fortunate to have a wife that is very supportive of my antenna experiments. We just have basic cable. When the cable is out or when there is a power failure, she wants two things: a battery operated lantern to see by, and a TV to get the latest news about the power failure. We can get the news on a battery operated radio, but the radio doesn't show us weather maps.

My wife wanted me to setup an outdoor antenna (because one inside doesn't work) with a battery operated digital TV and has even been supportive to the point of buying me a signal level meter to measure the strength digital TV signals.

If your wife finds the present mounting options for the C2V unacceptable, I feel obligated to find one that is acceptable. Hopefully, she will give the OK for the C2V mounted at the rear of the house, but not visible from the street. If not, then you will have to go to plan B, with the Roamio secondary just for recording, and the TV tuners fed directly from a splitter connected to your antenna system.

There are two options that I have in mind:

1. A 10 ft mast mounted on the deck with the C2V on top. Another version of the same idea would be two 10 ft masts together, with the base at ground level, fastened to the deck at the midpoint, and extending 20 ft up from the basement ground level with the C2V on top. You could make a temporary test setup of this location to see what kind of readings you would get on your Roamio. Maybe you could even bring the Roamio up to the 1st floor TV so you wouldn't have run up and down stairs.

2. The C2V on a short mast that is supported by two wall brackets fastened to the rear of your house between the two windows on the second floor. The two wall brackets would need to be long enough to allow the C2V to be rotated NE. This idea could also be tested with a temporary setup by sticking the C2V out the west window at the rear of the second floor. Maybe you could also move the Roamio up to the TV there.

Your handyman should be able to do either of these.

[rabbit73]

The Winegard antenna and mount would work, and they have good reviews.

My only reservation is that the mount is only 18 gauge, not 16 gauge, but Winegard is a good brand.

The mount would not be seen from the street, just the mast and antenna.

But, you haven't received the official OK yet.:)

[mulliganman]

The Winegard antenna and mount would work, and they have good reviews.

My only reservation is that the mount is only 18 gauge, not 16 gauge, but Winegard is a good brand.

The mount would not be seen from the street, just the mast and antenna.

But, you haven't received the official OK yet.:)

Yeah I am going to hopefully present the options again tomorrow. I know you mentioned about the gage before. What is the primary difference between the 16 and 18 gauge. Does one hold up way better than the other or something?

[rabbit73]

Yeah I am going to hopefully present the options again tomorrow. I know you mentioned about the gage before. What is the primary difference between the 16 and 18 gauge. Does one hold up way better than the other or something?16 gauge is thicker metal than 18 gauge; greater strength and less flexible. I could have read the specs wrong.

This antenna on the Winegard mount looks to be about the same size as the 7694.

[mulliganman]

If your wife finds the present mounting options for the C2V unacceptable, I feel obligated to find one that is acceptable. Hopefully, she will give the OK for the C2V mounted at the rear of the house, but not visible from the street. If not, then you will have to go to plan B, with the Roamio secondary just for recording, and the TV tuners fed directly from a splitter connected to your antenna system.

There are two options that I have in mind:

1. A 10 ft mast mounted on the deck with the C2V on top. Another version of the same idea would be two 10 ft masts together, with the base at ground level, fastened to the deck at the midpoint, and extending 20 ft up from the basement ground level with the C2V on top. You could make a temporary test setup of this location to see what kind of readings you would get on your Roamio. Maybe you could even bring the Roamio up to the 1st floor TV so you wouldn't have run up and down stairs.

2. The C2V on a short mast that is supported by two wall brackets fastened to the rear of your house between the two windows on the second floor. The two wall brackets would need to be long enough to allow the C2V to be rotated NE. This idea could also be tested with a temporary setup by sticking the C2V out the west window at the rear of the second floor. Maybe you could also move the Roamio up to the TV there.

You handyman should be able to do either of these.
Would those options not run into similar issues maybe with different objects or even the tree that ADTech spoke of. Just wondering your thoughts...

[rabbit73]

Would those options not run into similar issues maybe with different objects or even the tree that ADTech spoke of. Just wondering your thoughts...Probably not, because they would be using the same green lines as the eave mount, but just a little lower down on the rear of your house. Testing would tell you right away.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=880&stc=1&d=1416634091

Just got another idea:

What would happen if you used the 5 ft mast section that you just bought to raise the C2V 5 ft higher on the satellite mount? No "ugly" tripod needed, but if it doesn't fit it wouldn't work.

[mulliganman]

My wife is wanting to know how much higher the mast would be sticking up above the roof if we go with the eaves mount. I wasn't sure so I thought I'd ask.

[ADTech]

Short answer is "As high as it takes".

We are not able to stand on your rooftop and see what the precise distances and heights might be. The antenna will work best when it gets a clear and unobstructed view in the direction the signals are coming from.

[rabbit73]

My wife is wanting to know how much higher the mast would be sticking up above the roof if we go with the eaves mount. I wasn't sure so I thought I'd ask.Higher than what? If you mean higher than the roof itself, it would be something like the attachment. If you mean higher than its present location on the garage roof, then the C2V on the garage roof is about as high as the top part of the windows of the 2nd floor at the back of the house.

The eave mount itself at the back of the higher roof on the west side will not show from the street. Only the C2V antenna and the upper part of the mast will show.
Short answer is "As high as it takes".

We are not able to stand on your rooftop and see what the precise distances and heights might be. The antenna will work best when it gets a clear and unobstructed view in the direction the signals are coming from.
It is a different case for the C2V antenna on the garage roof, because of the house next to you on the east side. You would, as ADTech says, need to raise it high enough for the signals to clear the peak of their roof, which might be too obvious and unattractive.

You don't have a signal clearence problem, as far as I can tell, with the eave mount on the back of the higher roof where the eave mount would be fastened. That point has an unobstructed view to the NE, which is why that would be the best location for the C2V.

If you mounted the C2V on a mast on the rear deck, then nothing would show from the street, and the reception at that location might be satisfactory, because it looks like that is also an unobstructed place. The antenna on the deck would become a conversation piece for "bragging rights" about free high quality TV pictures and no cable bill.

The 91XG for Fox is doing well on the garage roof, as proved by your attenuator test to measure the "fade margin." After studying the photos of your house, it looks like the 91XG is also about as high as the top of the upper floor windows at the back, so even if it were moved up to a slightly higher location, the improvement wouldn't be much, if any. That is why we said leave it where it is on the garage roof.

This might be of interest to you since you have a CM DVR+:
New Firmware update for DVR+ #114R
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=2346193&postcount=826

[mulliganman]

Higher than what? If you mean higher than the roof itself, it would be something like the attachment. If you mean higher than its present location on the garage roof, then the C2V on the garage roof is about as high as the top part of the windows of the 2nd floor at the back of the house.

The eave mount itself at the back of the higher roof on the west side will not show from the street. Only the C2V antenna and the upper part of the mast will show.


Yes she meant higher than the roof itself.

If you mounted the C2V on a mast on the rear deck, then nothing would show from the street, and the reception at that location might be satisfactory, because it looks like that is also an unobstructed place. The antenna on the deck would become a conversation piece for "bragging rights" about free high quality TV pictures and no cable bill.

Are you talking about using the 5 or 10 foot mast? I'm not quite sure how that would be mounted on the deck (and also figured other houses or objects would prevent the C2V from having an unobstructed view from there).

This might be of interest to you since you have a CM DVR+:
New Firmware update for DVR+ #114R
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...&postcount=826

I had seen that over at AVS and thought about connecting via Ethernet to get the update. I haven't yet. One of the primary reasons I switched to the Tivo is because of a whole home setup which Channel Master doesn't have right now (but keep saying in January they are going to reveal something). The Tivo route for a DVR setup also seems to simplify my antenna setup a bit as I am only sending signals to 1 TV. I think it would start to get complicated to send signals to 3 TV's which each had a DVR+ connected to them (accounting for 6 tuners to drive). I would probably have to add an amp somewhere if I did that don't you think?

[rabbit73]

Yes she meant higher than the roof itself.Thank you.
Are you talking about using the 5 or 10 foot mast?10 ft, thinking that it could be supported by the railing at the NW corner of the deck, but only after you make a test to see if that would really work.

The 10 ft mast is needed there for the greater height for the signals and so that the antenna would be above the head of anyone on the deck for safety.
(and also figured other houses or objects would prevent the C2V from having an unobstructed view from there).What houses or objects are you aware of? I see some in the satellite view, but they don't look too serious. A test setup would tell you if there were a problem. I think you are worrying too soon.

http://forum.tvfool.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=882&stc=1&d=1416714333

In the photo above Kevin is using a WG 7697P. If you want to read more about his tree problem:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/381623-official-avs-antenna-related-hardware-topic-392.html#post17280909
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/381623-official-avs-antenna-related-hardware-topic-392.html#post17283385
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/25-hdtv-technical/381623-official-avs-antenna-related-hardware-topic-393.html#post17297708

It is true that the eave mount gives you the highest point. If the C2V there works well, your problem is solved. If the C2V works well only for the UHF signals, but there is still a problem with 10.1, then you will need to put a UHF/VHF-hi combo antenna, like the Winegard HD7694P, there.

If your test there doesn't work because of obstructions, then your only alternatives would be a tripod on the upper roof or a tower in the back yard. Both of them would be difficult to do.

If you then reach the point where you have no more options to improve the signals from the NE for the Roamio, then you are left with Plan B. That plan would be to demote the Roamio to a secondary role for recording only. The antenna coax downlead from the AC7 would be connected to a 4-way splitter that would feed the three TV tuners and the Roamio.
I had seen that over at AVS and thought about connecting via Ethernet to get the update. I haven't yet. One of the primary reasons I switched to the Tivo is because of a whole home setup which Channel Master doesn't have right now (but keep saying in January they are going to reveal something). The Tivo route for a DVR setup also seems to simplify my antenna setup a bit as I am only sending signals to 1 TV. I think it would start to get complicated to send signals to 3 TV's which each had a DVR+ connected to them (accounting for 6 tuners to drive). I would probably have to add an amp somewhere if I did that don't you think?I think you know a lot more about DVRs than I do.:)

Have to leave now; more later.

[mulliganman]

An update: My spouse is still very reluctant/hesitant to try the eaves mount. To me, it seems the option to have the best chance of success. Since she is still reluctant at this point, I feel I should explore other options that don't involve moving the C2V in any way first. To that end, I mentioned I had another DVR in my possession, the DVR+ from Channel Master, so I have tried it in the same setup to see how it would do (since every tuner can be different). The only change was the addition of the Holland Splitter (in this setup I don't need the Moca connection and need signals going to all 3 of my television sets).

91XG>Winegard LNA>Tinlee AC7 combiner>Holland 3 way splitter

C2V> Tinlee AC7 combiner>Holland 3 way splitter

Initial results hadn't shown any trouble with 33-1 (or any of its subchannels) or 10-1. What was noticeably different was the signal strength on 49-1 (Fox) was in the fifties and could fluctuate down to 48 or so (where some pixelation/cutout would occur). That seemed to suggest to me that the signal I was sending to the Tivo Roamio was receiving some sort of amplification once it got to the unit.

In order to try and bump the signal back up (to eliminate the cutouts) for Fox 49-1 I made the following change (daisy chaining two amps):

91XG>Winegard LNA>Channel Master 3410> Tinlee AC7 combiner>Holland 3 way splitter

C2V> Tinlee AC7 combiner>Holland 3 way splitter

This caused 3-1 (and its subchannels to drop out). Because of the dropoff, I decided to add 6db worth of attenuation to the Fox signal to attempt to alleviate the overload. So, after that change the setup looked like this:

91XG>Winegard LNA>Channel Master 3410> 6db attenuator >Tinlee AC7 combiner>Holland 3 way splitter

C2V> Tinlee AC7 combiner>Holland 3 way splitter

I thought I had "fixed" the overload as for a while 3-1 and everything was back and in the 80's on the signal strength and 100% on the DVR+ signal quality meters.

But, back came the pixelation/cutouts on the 3-1 (and its subchannels). I was able to confirm that the cutouts are not relegated to the DVR+ only. The sole regular television set I happened to check for the same issues on was doing the same thing.

I am going to try to see what the 3-1 signal looks like when I take out the Channel Master 3410 and what it looks like leaving it if I up the attention to 9db or so.

Other than that, does anyone have any suggestions regarding adding the little "boost" Fox seems to need when in use with the Channel Master DVR+? Again, please keep in mind these are alternatives I am considering that don't involve the moving of any antennas in order to exhaust all options to appease the wife (if all we are left with is that option). I appreciate anyone who chooses to provide feedback.

[mulliganman]

Simply relocating the C2V from its current location is likely all you need to do. It "appears" that it's below the level of your neighbors home, but, only someone standing on the roof would be able to be certain. Your situation illustrates the pitfall of using an existing satellite mount without taking the TV antenna's different requirements into proper consideration.

If that existing dish mount has support "legs" for a larger 18x24 dish, it's sturdy enough to install an extension pipe into it an raises the C2V up. Depending on the specific mount, you might easily get 5-8' of additional elevation which might clear the neighbor's rooftop.

Barring that, simply moving the antenna to the rear edge of the garage roof, closer to your deck, may allow the C2V a relatively unobstructed field of view for a good distance towards Fordland. I'd even be inclined to try it on your deck if that gets you out from behind the neighboring house.

One thing I did notice when I zoomed out from your rooftop view is that your signal LOS passes right through what appears to be a big tree in the back yard of the home on the corner across the street. If your reception issues correlate with wind or rain, then that tree would likely explain the issues.

Of the antennas you named, I'd only consider the second one plus the HBU33 as candidates. If you're going to have to go bigger, no point in trying to be subtle about it.



That's because Voxx Intl doesn't seem interested in publishing any specs.

ADTech, I am revisiting this thread and this post because after some unexpected financial costs forced me to shelve this project for a while I am revisiting it. I am curious about your comment about my LOS from my Fordland signals passing through a large tree in the back yard. Is that LOS from where my C2V currently sits or are you saying it would still be in the LOS path if I move that antenna to the peak of the tallest point of the roof with an eaves mount?

[mulliganman]

Just posting an update: After a long wait to follow suggestions in this thread due primarily to an expensive unexpected car repair I was finally able to follow through yesterday.

I used this eaves mount: http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-SW-0012-Gable-Mount-Antenna/dp/B001DFTGUQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422639610&sr=8-1&keywords=eaves+mount&pebp=1422639612163&peasin=B001DFTGUQ

and got my Antennas Direct C2V mounted to it at the suggested location. Also got the antennas grounded using I believe 10 gauge copper and a dual grounding block. So far, so good. I would like to thank rabbit and ADTech for all the feedback, suggestions, and time spent assisting me on this thread.

I felt it important to update because I wanted those two users especially to know how much I valued their time and effort in assisting me. Plus, I wanted them to know that I did follow through with the suggestions given even though quite a bit of time passed from the suggestions to the follow through and execution of the suggestions.

[BigDaveyL]

Just posting an update: After a long wait to follow suggestions in this thread due primarily to an expensive unexpected car repair I was finally able to follow through yesterday.

I used this eaves mount: http://www.amazon.com/Winegard-SW-0012-Gable-Mount-Antenna/dp/B001DFTGUQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422639610&sr=8-1&keywords=eaves+mount&pebp=1422639612163&peasin=B001DFTGUQ

and got my Antennas Direct C2V mounted to it at the suggested location. Also go the antennas grounded using I believe 10 gauge copper and a dual grounding block. So far, so good. I would like to thank rabbit and ADTech for all the feedback, suggestions, and time spent assisting me on this thread.

I felt it important to update because I wanted those two users especially to know how much I valued their time and effort in assisting me. Plus, I wanted them to know that I did follow through with the suggestions given even though quite a bit of time passed from the suggestions to the follow through and execution of the suggestions.


I even learned a few things reading this thread. :D

[mulliganman]

I even learned a few things reading this thread. :D

Good to hear that!

[rabbit73]

.....got my Antennas Direct C2V mounted to it at the suggested location. Also got the antennas grounded using I believe 10 gauge copper and a dual grounding block. So far, so good. I would like to thank rabbit and ADTech for all the feedback, suggestions, and time spent assisting me on this thread.

I felt it important to update because I wanted those two users especially to know how much I valued their time and effort in assisting me. Plus, I wanted them to know that I did follow through with the suggestions given even though quite a bit of time passed from the suggestions to the follow through and execution of the suggestions.Thanks for the update with the good news. Glad to be able to help.

I was wondering, as usual, how it would work out.