Difference Between EZ HD and RCA ANT751 Antennas?
 

The EZ HD Antenna and RCA ANT751 appear to be the exact same antennas. However, Denny's Antenna Service that sells the EZ HD Antenna claims that it has 2.2 more db's than the RCA ANT751. Is this true? I ask because he sells his (with the mount) for $69. Amazon sells the RCA antenna with a mount for $44 (quite a difference).

Any input is appreciated.

Antenna
 

The EZ HD and the RCA ANT751 are the same antenna.

Clarification
 

So, there is no difference? Even in the supposed 2.2 db's claimed by the maker of the EZ HD antenna? Have you had experience with this antenna? How do you know they are the same? I am new to the world of antennas and appreciate your insight.

There is a difference between the EZ HD antenna and the ANT 751. Yes, the antennas are made by the same manufacturer and with my permission RCA is allowed to market the ANT 751. In 2009 at the time of the analog shutdown the EZ HD was re-tuned and cut to the new and current digital frequencies and the ANT 751 was not. The UHF gain of the EZ HD antenna is greater than that of the ANT 751. The new improved frequency tuned EZ HD was tested against the ANT 751 on the same test range and the average UHF signal gain was improved by 2.2 dB.

I don't know where you get your info. Electron but it is incorrect.

Denny
Denny's Antenna Service

I'm curious as well. I'm looking to buy either one tonight to play around with.

Edit: Just saw your response Denny. Thanks.

You should get a cut of the money that RCA gets. Is the 751R a revision of the 751?

Curious
 

Denny,
Thanks for your response. I would also be interested in knowing the difference between the 751 and the 751R. Is the 751R the new and improved version of the 751, making its specs the same as the EZ HD Antenna? Just curious.

Thanks!

Too Much Hype
 

Yes you are correct, they are the same. When the FCC reassigned some of the the TV UHF frequencies, the highest UHF TV channel is now 51 (vice 69). Antennas no longer needed to receive channels 52-69 and smart manufacturers slightly lengthened some elements to provide higher gain to the lower UHF TV frequency band which was less of a compromise than previously. The statements about "digitally tuned" and similar comments are pure nonsense as the ATSC OTA signals are analog until converted to digital in the demodulator inside the ATSC tuner. RCA does not need anyone's' permission to sell Yagi antennas that have been around for over half a century. If that is not true, let's see a Patent number.

Nit-Picking Alert
 

Yes, even the 'reputable' advertiser is often guilty of using words and statements that pander to what the consumer wants or expects to hear. However, I'm reluctant to throw all advertising under the bus... http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=2884 - post #11. I believe it's my responsibility to educate myself as a consumer.

@ Red Hazard, I'm 'bugged' by phrases like "digitally tuned". Advertising that uses similar terms, is at best, accommodating the ignorance of the consumer, at worse, deceiving the consumer. However, I have to disagree with "...ATSC OTA signals are analog until converted to digital in the demodulator inside the ATSC tuner."

I would not characterize an un-modulated carrier as either analog or digital. It is the original of itself, not a copy or representation of anything else in either a digital or analog form.

I would describe the information modulated into a carrier as either analog or digital when speaking of NTSC and ATSC respectively. Both signal types are a copy of or representation of video and audio. I would argue that ATSC signals are digital at the modulator, through the transmitter and its antenna, through the air, through the receiving antenna system and through the tuner.

I think your point is that antennas are neutral regarding modulation. Antennas are not a part of the modulation or demodulation process. The antenna simply needs to accommodate the RF carrier(s) of interest. Antenna gain, directivity and bandwidth can be measured with either analog or digital measurement techniques and equipment.

END of picking, the nit got away

Re: Tv Reception with Tv antennas
 

Marketing words such as , digitally tuned antenna , antenna is HD Ready , antenna is HD tuned , and etc. and etc. , is a lot of marketing hype and misleads the consumer. As to the ATSC OTA. At some point in the process of processing video and audio - before transmission - the video and audio can be analog or digital or combinations of both. However , before the actual transmission of/for ATSC digital , the video and audio is put in to the ATSC Digital format and transmitted -> ATSC Digital. The signal leaves the transmitting antenna as ATSC Digital and arrives at the receiving antenna -> as a ATSC Digital signal and the Tv's ATSC Digital tuner accepts the ATSC Digital signal.

Antennas
 

Tv antennas do not - (see) - (understand) - analog or digital. Antennas receive a electromagnetic wave/energy , be it analog or digital or both. Tv antennas receive electromagnetic tv channels , VHF low band channels 2 thru 6 , VHF high band channels 7 thru 13 and UHF channels 14 thru 51 digital , 14 thru 69 analog. Tv antennas are designed to receive , VHF/UHF electromagnetic frequencies/channels.

Digital Signals
 

A true digital signal cannot be amplified by an analog device such as an antenna preamp or amplifiers in the front end or RF receivers nor by an LNA on satellite dish horns. The true digital signal is at the input to the modulator and the output of the demodulator. If one is into splitting hairs, the ATSC signal as well as those used by Dish Network and DirecTV and other satellite as providers as well as ATSC are actually considered quasi-analog because they do not meet the definition precisely as having an infinite amount of signal resolution

Very little has changed in the last 50 years when it comes to antennas

a yagi is still a yagi, a bowtie is still a bowtie, and a loop is still a loop

you can encase it in plastic or paint it pretty colors but its still the same old antenna that's been around for decades

what HAS changed is heavy advertising and false performance claims

Db gain over a DIPOLE used to be the standard back when
honesty in the industry existed

today they quote "raw gain" and gain over the non- existant "isotropic" reference

DBI is a totally useless gain figure that can't be proven or tested on this planet PERIOD

Since you can't possibly build or buy an isotropic reference, they can claim anything

its like saying an antenna has 15 db gain over a UNICORN

a 4 bay bowtie built by the best engineers on the planet never produced more than 12 dbd gain yet today I see claims of as much a 17 db gain

a new gullible generation is easy pickins for these tactics and the proof is in the sales figures

quad shielded coax is another one I get tired of

you will never find a situation where you will see a difference between normal 100% shielding and quad shielding on TV frequencies

its another marketing ploy

and while the gullible are buying this stuff up by the mile, they fail to notice that this magical coax they bought has a STEEL center conductor that not only can't power their magical super duper low noise figure preamp properly, but can in fact RUST and ruin their massive investment

I used to tell people years ago to take anything that is heavily advertised and pushed with a grain of salt but today you need the whole salt shaker to swallow some of these new claims