Suggestions for VHF/UHF antenna in New Jersey...

[gossamer]

Hi all,

First post to the list. I'm relatively new to this process, but have read a few posts and have a general idea of how to proceed. I would sure appreciate advice on determining which antenna is most suitable for me.

I'm looking to connect two HDTVs and a PC Tuner card on my Linux box. We're in northern NJ. The house is a two-story and located near the bottom of a hill. I thought a good start would be to provide the map results from three separate heights:

# 25 feet
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d001b40d57e34bb

# 50 feet
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d001bc982b23203

# 75 feet
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d001b57b8271e2d

I'm not ready to purchase a $1000 self-supporting antenna, but thought I could get away with a mast secured mostly to the second floor of the house. There are a few trees just about at the second-story level, but it really depends on the orientation of the antenna whether they would be an obstruction.

Should I measure the distance from the ground to the roof? I have an indoor Winegard antenna, and it works reasonably well when just hanging it out the second-floor window at a specific location.

Is it ever necessary to have a rotor these days? We had one on our house in the early 80s, before cable, and that's not something I want to do again.

Sure appreciate any ideas you may have.

Thanks so much.
Dave

[GroundUrMast]

A roof mounted all channel antenna aimed between 165° and 170° (compass) will provide an extensive line-up, better than almost any other around the country.

Consider antennas such as the Antennacraft CS290, Winegard HD7015 and Channel Master CM-3016. You should not need an amplifier or rotator. If you go with a larger antenna you may add additional low power signals to your line-up.

[gossamer]

A roof mounted all channel antenna aimed between 165° and 170° (compass) will provide an extensive line-up, better than almost any other around the country.
Yeah, I used to be able to see the twin towers on my way to work.

Consider antennas such as the Antennacraft CS290, Winegard HD7015 and Channel Master CM-3016. You should not need an amplifier or rotator. If you go with a larger antenna you may add additional low power signals to your line-up.
It looks like the Winegard (31 elements) is better than the Channelmaster (24 elements), but the Channelmaster is more expensive. Am I using a reasonable metric to make a purchasing decision?

The Channelmaster is under $50 from Amazon, including shipping, and they have an incredible return policy.

Is the Channelmaster a safe purchase?

Thanks again,
Dave

[John Candle]

The Tv transmissions are very strong and you will receive way too many channels to watch. I suggest a Winegard HD7082P all channel antenna aimed at about 190 degree magnetic compass to start with , turn the antenna to the left and right for strongest reception of the Tv stations at 169 magnetic compass and 214 magnetic compass. An antenna amplifier Will Not be needed. The HD7082P antenna is a Heavy Duty Construction antenna and will last a long time outside. A lot longer then the CS290,HD7015,CM3016. . I suggest mounting the antenna on the roof with a , tripod mount or chimney mount or peak of the roof eave/gable mount. Here are places to buy Tv antennas and etc. , http://www.3starinc.com , http://www.solidsignal.com , http://www.starkelectronic.com , http://www.amazon.com

[John Candle]

Here is how to aim Tv antennas , http://www.kyes.com/antenna/pointing/pointing.html , Read and understand this about , REAL Digital Broadcast Tv Channels , Virtual Digital Broadcast Tv Channels , Analog Broadcast Tv Channels , http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=695 , Here are some free Tv guides. http://television.aol.com , http://www.titantv.com , http://www.zap2it.com , http://tv.yahoo.com , http://tv.entertainment.excite.com , http://www.tvzap.com

[John Candle]

Unless you have some dense/tall close by trees to the south , then mounting the antenna about 4 or 5 feet above the roof will be fine. . Yes sometimes a rotor is needed , But not for you.

[gossamer]

The Tv transmissions are very strong and you will receive way too many channels to watch. I suggest a Winegard HD7082P all channel antenna aimed at about 190 degree magnetic compass to start with , turn the antenna to the left and right for strongest reception of the Tv stations at 169 magnetic compass and 214 magnetic compass.

Do you mean try these different angles to experiment which is best? Later you mention that a rotor won't be needed, so it was a little unclear to me.

An antenna amplifier Will Not be needed.
Am I to infer that I'm so close that the signal will be strong enough as it is? It's probably obvious, but just curious if there was another explanation.

I suggest mounting the antenna on the roof with a , tripod mount or chimney mount or peak of the roof eave/gable mount.
So a tripod would only be a few feet high, correct? It wouldn't require guy wires or anything else more involved to affix it to the roof?

Any trees we do have in the way would probably not be a significant obstruction, if at all, so you believe the roof-level height would be sufficient?

Thanks so much. Really appreciate your time.

Best,
Dave

[John Candle]

A rotor Will Not be used. A rotor Will Not be installed. You Will Not buy a rotor. You Will Not have a rotor in your hands. You Will Not be looking at a rotor. You Will Not mount a rotor on the mast. You Will Not mount the Tv antenna on the rotor , because there will be NO rotor. When Tv antennas are installed the Tv antenna is turned by hand to the left and right to find the strongest reception. Turn the Tv antenna a few degrees to the left and a few degrees to the right to find the strongest reception in the direction of the Tv stations you will like to receive.

[John Candle]

There will be No signal amplifier installed or used. The Tv transmissions are Strong at your location and the big antenna has plenty of gain , the antenna makes the signals even stronger.

[John Candle]

The typical tripod antenna mount is 3 feet high. A mast ( the pipe that the antenna is mounted on ) is a few feet long , so with the mast in the tripod mount and the antenna attached to the mast then the antenna will be about 5 feet above the roof. No guy wires will be used. Tripod mounts are very Sturdy and Strong. Chimney mounts are very Sturdy and Strong. Peak of the roof eave/gable mounts are very Sturdy and Strong.

[John Candle]

This is not trick information. If your imagination takes over about all of the , ands , buts , maybees , you will come to a dead end. The information about trees is not trick information. What I am saying is , IF <-- notice the word IF. If there are trees to the south , and IF the trees are close and IF the trees are BIG and THICK and DENCE then some of the Tv transmissions can be reduced in strength. When you are standing on the roof of the house , and you can see across the tops of trees to the horizon then the reception should be fine.

[John Candle]

19 miles is close to the transmitters , 30 miles is close to the transmitters. Most of the transmitting antennas are LOS = Line Of Sight. The only way to get any better then Line Of Sight is to climb up the transmitting tower and Hug the transmitting antenna.

[gossamer]

A rotor Will Not be used. A rotor Will Not be installed. You Will Not buy a rotor. You Will Not have a rotor in your hands. You Will Not be looking at a rotor. You Will Not mount a rotor on the mast. You Will Not mount the Tv antenna on the rotor , because there will be NO rotor. When Tv antennas are installed the Tv antenna is turned by hand to the left and right to find the strongest reception. Turn the Tv antenna a few degrees to the left and a few degrees to the right to find the strongest reception in the direction of the Tv stations you will like to receive.
Dude, relax. Did the kids call you names when you were young?

Get over it. The forum has been very helpful, and I didn't think it was a big deal to ask for a little clarification, despite knowing there was a great chance it was an unnecessary question.

[gossamer]

This is not trick information. If your imagination takes over about all of the , ands , buts , maybees , you will come to a dead end. The information about trees is not trick information. What I am saying is , IF <-- notice the word IF. If there are trees to the south , and IF the trees are close and IF the trees are BIG and THICK and DENCE then some of the Tv transmissions can be reduced in strength. When you are standing on the roof of the house , and you can see across the tops of trees to the horizon then the reception should be fine.
I think if I stood on the roof, and only IF, there would be a good chance I would still see trees aiming south. If I stand on the neighbors roof, however, there aren't any trees. Does that count?

Maybe all this hostility you have is because your jealous that my reception is better than yours? :-)

btw, it's DENSE, not DENCE.

[gossamer]

The typical tripod antenna mount is 3 feet high. A mast ( the pipe that the antenna is mounted on ) is a few feet long , so with the mast in the tripod mount and the antenna attached to the mast then the antenna will be about 5 feet above the roof. No guy wires will be used. Tripod mounts are very Sturdy and Strong. Chimney mounts are very Sturdy and Strong. Peak of the roof eave/gable mounts are very Sturdy and Strong.

I think the tripod is going to be my best option.

I'm concerned that mounting a tripod at the eave of the roof could cause leakage. Do you have any tips or suggestions in preparation for mounting it?

Thanks,
Dave

[GroundUrMast]

JC's recommendation of the HD7082P is a premium solution, not overkill, but appropriate if you want to see the lower powered stations, particularly those using 'real' low-VHF channel assignments.

If you have a gable style roof, you can avoid the use of a tripod by choosing a Wall Mount (http://www.3starinc.com/antenna_wall_mounts.html). I am reluctant to put holes in my roof too. If a tripod is the best option for you, be sure to use a Pitch Pad Kit (http://www.3starinc.com/ez46-3_pitch_pad_kit_with_screws.html) and appropriate amounts of roofing cement. Depending on your roof type, you may want to ask someone in the roofing business.

You have quite a lot of signal to work with, so much in fact, that many amplifiers would be expected to overload. The distant, weak signals would require extreme measures such as much larger antennas and possibly a high tower... and then you would still be facing problems of co-channel and adjacent channel interference. If you have an interest in DX reception, I would think you would want to consider a separate antenna system for local vs. DX.

[gossamer]

JC's recommendation of the HD7082P is a premium solution, not overkill, but appropriate if you want to see the lower powered stations, particularly those using 'real' low-VHF channel assignments.

If you have a gable style roof, you can avoid the use of a tripod by choosing a Wall Mount (http://www.3starinc.com/antenna_wall_mounts.html). I am reluctant to put holes in my roof too. If a tripod is the best option for you, be sure to use a Pitch Pad Kit (http://www.3starinc.com/ez46-3_pitch_pad_kit_with_screws.html) and appropriate amounts of roofing cement. Depending on your roof type, you may want to ask someone in the roofing business.
Awesome, thanks. The wall mount is a much better option and also something that will work for me.

I think the HD7082P looks like a good choice. It appears the antenna purchase doesn't generally include the mast, correct? It only includes the hardware to mount it to a mast?

It looks like this one includes a sufficient mast with the mounting kit for the side of the house for the HD7082P antenna?

http://www.3starinc.com/ron-104_deluxe_4_inch_standoff_tv_antenna_mast_w_wall_mount_bracket.html

How do I determine the diameter mast that I need? The specs in the listing for the antenna doesn't seem to indicate that.

You have quite a lot of signal to work with, so much in fact, that many amplifiers would be expected to overload. The distant, weak signals would require extreme measures such as much larger antennas and possibly a high tower... and then you would still be facing problems of co-channel and adjacent channel interference. If you have an interest in DX reception, I would think you would want to consider a separate antenna system for local vs. DX.

Okay, understood, and recall some of that from explanations by my father when I was a kid. I don't understand DX, however. Where can I find more information about that?

Is that medium wave radio, like AM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_DX

How about grounding? How do I account for that?

Thanks,
Dave

[GroundUrMast]

...
It looks like this one includes a sufficient mast with the mounting kit for the side of the house for the HD7082P antenna?

http://www.3starinc.com/ron-104_deluxe_4_inch_standoff_tv_antenna_mast_w_wall_mount_bracket.html

How do I determine the diameter mast that I need? The specs in the listing for the antenna doesn't seem to indicate that.



... I don't understand DX, however. Where can I find more information about that?

Is that medium wave radio, like AM?

...

How about grounding? How do I account for that?

Thanks,
Dave
The description for the product you linked to includes, "(Mast not Included)". The common mast diameter for consumer grade OTA antennas is 1.25" - O.D. All of the antennas mentioned up to this point will fit that size mast.

DX in this context refers to reception of distant TV signals. For some, it's a hobby like HAM radio. For others, it's their only hope for OTA reception. It includes dealing with weak signals, interference and in many cases, an understanding of tropospheric radio propagation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_and_FM_DX

A thread re. grounding (http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=901)

[John Candle]

Here is a picture of a peak of the roof eave/gable mount. http://www.sadoun.com/Sat/Products/Perfect/PVEM1.gif

[gossamer]

Here is a picture of a peak of the roof eave/gable mount. http://www.sadoun.com/Sat/Products/Perfect/PVEM1.gif

Yes, perfect, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Thanks again for all your help. I hope to be able to contribute something valuable in the future as you guys have done.

Thanks,
Dave

[gossamer]

JC's recommendation of the HD7082P is a premium solution, not overkill, but appropriate if you want to see the lower powered stations, particularly those using 'real' low-VHF channel assignments.

It was doing a little reading, and learned that the low VHF and FM reduces the gain at the HD UHF band, which is what I really need. Do you think this is correct?

Thanks again,
Dave

[GroundUrMast]

It was doing a little reading, and learned that the low VHF and FM reduces the gain at the HD UHF band, which is what I really need. Do you think this is correct?

Thanks again,
Dave
Well.... almost. The low VHF channels, 2 through 6 are affected by radio noise more than high VHF and UHF channels. Propagation of these frequencies is also a problem at times, the upper atmosphere can act like a 'duct' or 'pipe', causing distant stations hundreds or thousands of miles away, to interfere with a station on the same channel. This makes reliable reception of the low VHF channels more difficult. I don't think it's correct to say that low VHF channels affect the gain of channels in the UHF band though.

FM stations can interfere with television reception. This often occurs when the FM signal is quite strong and the FM signal is 1/3, 1/5 or 1/7 the frequency of the TV channel. Amplifiers that are overloaded by strong signal(s) will distort the signals passing through the amplification circuit which will generate additional frequencies, usually 3, 5, 7 and other odd multiples of the input frequency.

Even though there are some challenges, it has been found, that the current DTV signal format used for OTA broadcasting in North America is more successful on high VHF and UHF channels.

On the plus side, high VHF and especially UHF antennas are quite a bit smaller than low VHF antennas. This makes it practical to build antennas with much more gain and directivity for channels 7 and higher.

[John Candle]

No the VHF and FM does not reduce the UHF. People say the craziest information. People get a little information and then twist it all out of shape. Here is the truth , Some antennas are designed as UHF only antennas and as such can be designed to have higher gain on the UHF only channels.

[gossamer]

No the VHF and FM does not reduce the UHF. People say the craziest information. People get a little information and then twist it all out of shape. Here is the truth , Some antennas are designed as UHF only antennas and as such can be designed to have higher gain on the UHF only channels , then a VHF/UHF FM antenna.
Interesting, thanks. For some reason I didn't see this response until I came back, because I have a follow-up question. First, it's not that I don't believe you (really, I do), but can you think of a reference online that can describe this further?

So the person that told me this information also told me that the two channels that I currently receive that are VHF (WABC and WPIX) are changing to UHF, so it is another reason why I shouldn't bother with a VHF antenna. Do you have any information about this? I've checked the FCC site to the best of my ability, and don't see any reference to either of them changing any time so.

I've also checked their wikipedia pages, and it seems like they have submitted for a change (as well as a signal increase), but have not been approved, and it's been more than 18mo.

Thanks for any ideas.
Dave

[ADTech]

Neither WABC nor WPIX have applied for nor hinted at moving from their VHF allocation to a UHF channel. Your source was mistaken.

In NYC, majors on VHF channels 7, 11, and 13 are set where they're at unless the FCC's re-packing proposal eventually affects them.

[GroundUrMast]

In the end, it's your choice...

You have quite a bit of signal to work with so you don't need a huge 'deep fringe' antenna.

As you look at your TVF report, pay attention to the column 'Channel - Real'.

The HD7082P will very likely receive every channel from the top of the list down to the channels in the red section on an azimuth between 150° and 160°, with possible exception of those affected by co-channel or adjacent channel interference. The three antennas I suggested early on would also deliver a nearly similar lineup... the weaker signals being possible exceptions.

You have yet more options; You could choose not to receive any of the real channels 2 through 6. Given that choice, you could select an antenna that covers real channels 7 and higher. Ex. Winegard HD7964P, Antennacraft HBU-33 or HBU-44. These antennas will not have the long elements needed for real channel 2-6 reception.

If you are willing to forgo reliable reception of channels 2 through 13, you could opt for a very compact 2 or 4 bay UHF panel antenna such as the Antennas Direct DB-2 or DB-4. Antennacraft, Winegard and Channel Master have similar antennas.

[John Candle]

The Winegard HD7082P is designed to receive the low band tv channels 2 thru 6. Tv station WKOB-LD Real channel 2 has these digital sub channels , RTV http://www.myretrotv.com , TUFF TV http://www.tufftv.com , History Of Television Network http://www.hottvchannel.com

[John Candle]

You can compare antenna gain figures at , http://www.antennacraft.net compare the the , HD1850 , HD1800 , MXU59 , MXU47. And at http://www.winegarddirect.com compare the HD8200P and the HD7698P and the HD9095P and the HD9075P gain figures. And you can compare all the other antennas at these two manufactures.

[gossamer]

No the VHF and FM does not reduce the UHF. People say the craziest information. People get a little information and then twist it all out of shape. Here is the truth , Some antennas are designed as UHF only antennas and as such can be designed to have higher gain on the UHF only channels.
I've read this over another dozen times, and I think I'm starting to get it.

You are basically saying that higher gain can be achieved for UHF with antennas that are not designed for the lower VHF frequencies. In my case, due to the proximity to so many surrounding transmitters, it's not a concern for me. Correct?

I think I might also be confusing channels 2-13 with real channels 2-13. I'm in NYC area, so channel 2 is WCBS. I believe you're referring to only the channels below 13 in the "Real" column of the TVF listing for my area, correct?

So this would include WABC, WPIX, WNET, correct?

Thanks,
Dave

[GroundUrMast]

Unless we clearly indicate otherwise, I and the other regular posters here, speak only of the real channel numbers. This is because antenna selection is base on the real frequencies (channels) to be received. Antennas have no 'awareness' of virtual channel numbers, nor do they have any ability to distinguish between analog, digital, CW, AM, FM, SSB, PM or any other type of modulation. Virtual channel numbers help the broadcaster retain brand recognition established over many years... they also help confuse antenna selection.

WABC is on real channel 7 - conveniently that lines up with their VC#
WPIX is on real channel 11 - again, they conveniently were able to match the real and VC#
WNET is on real channel 13 - ditto
WCBS, WNBC, WWOR and many other did not manage to match real and virtual channels as they switched from analog to digital modulation.

The bottom line is, you need to check each one you are interested in.

Antennas are designed to operate over some range of frequencies determined by the intended application. Some antennas are only designed to operate over a narrow range of frequencies while other designs are intended for use over a wide range of frequencies. Antennas intended for low frequencies require longer elements and wider spacing than equal performing antennas at higher frequencies. Generally, an antenna designed to operate over a wide range of frequencies will be larger than one designed for a narrow range of frequencies.

It is easier to design a high gain UHF antenna that fits into a relatively small volume than a lower frequency VHF antenna. This is simply due to the physics involved. High gain Wifi antennas operate at frequencies well above the UHF band and as a result can be made far more compact... for the same reasons.

[John Candle]

WCBS Is transmitting on real channel UHF 33. Any way I have made my recommendation to receive the Tv channels at your location. You can choose your own antenna or go with what some else suggests.

[gossamer]

Unless we clearly indicate otherwise, I and the other regular posters here, speak only of the real channel numbers. This is because antenna selection is base on the real frequencies (channels) to be received. Antennas have no 'awareness' of virtual channel numbers, nor do they have any ability to distinguish between analog, digital, CW, AM, FM, SSB, PM or any other type of modulation. Virtual channel numbers help the broadcaster retain brand recognition established over many years... they also help confuse antenna selection.

WABC is on real channel 7 - conveniently that lines up with their VC#
WPIX is on real channel 11 - again, they conveniently were able to match the real and VC#
WNET is on real channel 13 - ditto
WCBS, WNBC, WWOR and many other did not manage to match real and virtual channels as they switched from analog to digital modulation.

The bottom line is, you need to check each one you are interested in.

Antennas are designed to operate over some range of frequencies determined by the intended application. Some antennas are only designed to operate over a narrow range of frequencies while other designs are intended for use over a wide range of frequencies. Antennas intended for low frequencies require longer elements and wider spacing than equal performing antennas at higher frequencies. Generally, an antenna designed to operate over a wide range of frequencies will be larger than one designed for a narrow range of frequencies.

It is easier to design a high gain UHF antenna that fits into a relatively small volume than a lower frequency VHF antenna. This is simply due to the physics involved. High gain Wifi antennas operate at frequencies well above the UHF band and as a result can be made far more compact... for the same reasons.

Thanks for the explanation. FWIW, that is pretty much what I had understood, so I don't feel like I'm completely new at this :-)

Thanks,
Dave

[gossamer]

WCBS Is transmitting on real channel UHF 33. Any way I have made my recommendation to receive the Tv channels at your location. You can choose your own antenna or go with what some else suggests.

John, thanks again. Once I realized the "Real" column was the one that should be used as the "real" reference, it was clear.

The Winegard HD7082P is designed to receive the low band tv channels 2 thru 6. Tv station WKOB-LD Real channel 2 has these digital sub channels , RTV http://www.myretrotv.com , TUFF TV http://www.tufftv.com , History Of Television Network http://www.hottvchannel.com

I checked out the websites for these domains, and it's unclear whether they broadcast in my area. Were you pointing these out because you know that they broadcast in the NYC area, and if so, can you point me to where I can find this out?

Thanks,
Dave

[John Candle]

I wonder if it would be Ok for you to go to the RTV web site and look the words Coverage Maps or even to call with a phone. And I wonder if it would be Ok to call the other networks. You can find out what is on the Tv stations by Googling the Tv stations call letters.

[gossamer]

I wonder if it would be Ok for you to go to the RTV web site and look the words Coverage Maps or even to call with a phone.

John, I'm sorry you think I'm taking advantage of you. I did already check the RTV site (http://www.myretrotv.com/affiliates.html), and that is the only one that indicates they broadcast from NYC; the others do not.

I thought there was some table similar to the TVF listing that showed the channels you indicated, and when I didn't see RTV (or any of the others) in that list, I thought you were referring to someplace else.

I now see WSAH is one of their affiliates, but the historyoftelevision site seems only to broadcast in Texas, which is what confused me.

Thanks again for all your help.
Regards,
Dave

[GroundUrMast]

I find RabbitEars.Info (http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php) to be helpful when I need to know what is being carried on virtual channels.

[Dave Loudin]

gossamer,
The network affiliation shown in the TVFool reports is for the main channel only, not the x.2, x.3, etc. subchannels. For low-power and independent stations that run many subs, its tough to have up-to-the-minute accurate information, so TVFool may leave that field blank. John was trying to point out to you that there is some programming available in the VHF Lo band, albeit special interest. There will be two other low-power stations that will be available in the future according to your report, one on channel 4 and one on channel 6. Do some searching at rabbitears.info to see if any of what they would have to offer might appeal to you.

Otherwise, you should go with the UHF/high-VHF antennas from Antennacraft and Winegard that @GroundUrMast recommended.

At the risk of spinning this out of control, I think your friend was confusing a couple of issues together. He was probably thinking about problems that can happen when HD receivers (either in the TV or as a separate box) get overloaded by nearby FM stations. In some cases, strong FM stations can set up interference in the high-VHF band that KOs reception of those particular stations. Strong signals of any type (FM, low/high VHF and UHF) can overload the receiver and cause interference all up and down the dial or simply force the tuner to scale back sensitivity and lose reception of weak stations.

I'm not sure if you remember FM radios in boom boxes, but if you got one near a broadcast tower, you would start to hear that station on multiple locations on the dial. That is a similar situation to what I was describing in the last paragraph.

[gossamer]

gossamer,
The network affiliation shown in the TVFool reports is for the main channel only, not the x.2, x.3, etc. subchannels. For low-power and independent stations that run many subs, its tough to have up-to-the-minute accurate information, so TVFool may leave that field blank. John was trying to point out to you that there is some programming available in the VHF Lo band, albeit special interest. There will be two other low-power stations that will be available in the future according to your report, one on channel 4 and one on channel 6. Do some searching at rabbitears.info to see if any of what they would have to offer might appeal to you.

Otherwise, you should go with the UHF/high-VHF antennas from Antennacraft and Winegard that @GroundUrMast recommended.

Okay, thanks. The retrotv channel looks pretty compelling, but I don't otherwise think there is anything below channel 6 that I would be interested in.

At the risk of spinning this out of control, I think your friend was confusing a couple of issues together. He was probably thinking about problems that can happen when HD receivers (either in the TV or as a separate box) get overloaded by nearby FM stations. In some cases, strong FM stations can set up interference in the high-VHF band that KOs reception of those particular stations. Strong signals of any type (FM, low/high VHF and UHF) can overload the receiver and cause interference all up and down the dial or simply force the tuner to scale back sensitivity and lose reception of weak stations.

You had said there were a couple of issues, but it's unclear what the second issue is. The first is that FM stations can set up interference in the high-VHF band, causing a potential degradation in signal quality of those channels, correct? If so, then what's the second issue?

If I choose an antenna that does not receive the frequencies below channel 6, am I avoiding this issue? Or is that range higher than channel 6?

Thanks,
Dave

[Dave Loudin]

The second was strong signals desensitizing your tuner (the last sentence of what you quoted). I was implying that your friend was assigning the problems of strong signals with antenna design. This does not apply in your situation as far as I can tell, no matter what range of channels you want. Sounds like anything below RF 7 is not needed, so focus on the 7-69 designs that @GroundUrMast recommended. Go buy something!

[No static at all]

If I were in your shoes I would get the Winegard 7694 (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=WINEGARD+7694&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=5yz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&biw=1024&bih=578&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13432481164875407023&sa=X&ei=St38TY-sJfCx0AHc3OiRAw&ved=0CFAQ8wIwAA) & mount it on the roof. It should easily power 1-3 sets & eliminate any concerns with FM interference.

If some channels pixelate or dropout with 3 sets connected, I would then add the Channel Master 3414 (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=channel+master+3414&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14069157933367983033&sa=X&ei=H978TYO0Lofe0QHj99iwAw&ved=0CEcQ8wIwAA) distribution amp; but only if needed. The 3414 will not overload with the signals at your location.


The LO VHF stations are only pushing 300 watts & the slightest bit of interference will likely make them susceptible to dropouts.(Especially overhead powerlines) Not worth the hassle IMO.

[gossamer]

If I were in your shoes I would get the Winegard 7694 (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=WINEGARD+7694&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=5yz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&biw=1024&bih=578&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13432481164875407023&sa=X&ei=St38TY-sJfCx0AHc3OiRAw&ved=0CFAQ8wIwAA) & mount it on the roof. It should easily power 1-3 sets & eliminate any concerns with FM interference.

If some channels pixelate or dropout with 3 sets connected, I would then add the Channel Master 3414 (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=channel+master+3414&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=14069157933367983033&sa=X&ei=H978TYO0Lofe0QHj99iwAw&ved=0CEcQ8wIwAA) distribution amp; but only if needed. The 3414 will not overload with the signals at your location.

The LO VHF stations are only pushing 300 watts & the slightest bit of interference will likely make them susceptible to dropouts.(Especially overhead powerlines) Not worth the hassle IMO.

Thanks so much for all your help. I really wanted to understand how this all works.

Thanks,
Dave

[sakrattack]

i think a rotor would be useful

[GroundUrMast]

i think a rotor would be usefulI',m not sure how... Few if any other locations are better served with OTA viewing options, and in this case, almost all from virtually one direction. The OP's reception opportunities and conditions are bordering on 'fantastic'.

What stations or programming would a rotator make available that the fixed aim antenna option does not offer?