TV Fool  

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Help With Reception

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-Sep-2011, 4:33 PM   #1
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Best gain for low-UHF antenna?

So, I went on this website: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

... and it says that for low UHF 14-30, say, that the best gain antenna is Winegard PR-8800 (though it's not rated for deep-fringe reception).

Initially I was thinking of getting the 91gx brand, which is best for deep fringe UHF (> 80 miles), but this 91gx shows higher gain when you're above channel 30...

So, given info and assuming that website is credible, should I get this PR-8800 instead, as the UHF deep fringe channels I want is UHF 17 - 35?

be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Sep-2011, 4:38 PM   #2
John Candle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,697
Tv Antennas and Reception

Here are more posts by , be236 , http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=2186
John Candle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Sep-2011, 5:02 PM   #3
Tower Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Delmar, NY
Posts: 1,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by be236 View Post
should I get this PR-8800 instead, as the UHF deep fringe channels I want is UHF 17 - 35?
Here is more data to confuse you.

http://www.antennahacks.com/AntennaComparison.htm

Your choice of a 91XG is fine.
Tower Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Sep-2011, 5:46 PM   #4
No static at all
Senior Member
 
No static at all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Guy View Post
Your choice of a 91XG is fine.
I have tried the original CM4228, Winegard PR-8800 & 91-XG in a deep fringe situation & the 91-XG was the clear winner.

The 91-XG was also best in both a metropolitan & far suburban environment between those 3 antennas.
No static at all is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Sep-2011, 5:49 PM   #5
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tower Guy View Post
Here is more data to confuse you.

http://www.antennahacks.com/AntennaComparison.htm

Your choice of a 91XG is fine.
Wow, thanks for the helpful tip, Tower Guy!
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Sep-2011, 5:52 PM   #6
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by No static at all View Post
I have tried the original CM4228, Winegard PR-8800 & 91-XG in a deep fringe situation & the 91-XG was the clear winner.

The 91-XG was also best in both a metropolitan & far suburban environment between those 3 antennas.
I know I keep asking the same question.. But just want to make sure I buy the right antenna the first time...

..So you're saying the 91-XG can get good gain (about the same) as PR-8800 even for those low-UHF channels 14-35, right?
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-Sep-2011, 5:57 PM   #7
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,749
Despite the computer modeling, which I give credence too, my real world experience with the XG-91 vs the HD-8800 has been that the XG-91 beats the HD-8800 by quite a bit.

I hope to get a calibrated spectrum analyzer and antenna test range for Christmas so I would be able to measure the exact differences.

Both of the web sites cited are valuable reference sources, but not necessarily absolute.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 23-Sep-2011 at 10:12 PM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Sep-2011, 2:12 AM   #8
No static at all
Senior Member
 
No static at all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by be236 View Post
..So you're saying the 91-XG can get good gain (about the same) as PR-8800 even for those low-UHF channels 14-35, right?
The PR-8800 proved un-reliable on channels 16 & 19, but the 91-XG has no problem with them.
No static at all is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-Sep-2011, 5:18 AM   #9
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by No static at all View Post
The PR-8800 proved un-reliable on channels 16 & 19, but the 91-XG has no problem with them.
Cool, thanks for the info. I'll get ready to order the 91-XG from Solid Signal then...
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 2:50 PM   #10
Billiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 380
Actually the Channel Master 3023 is probably the best antenna for UHF low signals. I bought one here this year and compared it to the 91XG and MXU 59, 4221 HD, 4228 old model and U 8000 and it was the clear winner on channels below channel 30 here. The 91 XG and MXU 59 perform virtually identically to one another on every channel and offer better gain on the higher UHF channels. If your primary concern is low UHF then go with the 3023.

http://www.summitsource.com/channel-...le-p-6678.html
Billiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 4:42 PM   #11
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Hmmm...

What's the UHF gain on this CM 3023? The 91 XG has a -16.7 dB gain, which is pretty good... and it's rated for 70+ miles...

That CM 3023 is rated up to 45 miles...

I'm looking for a deep fringe UHF where most the channels is about 17 to 33, and Tvfools shows those channels at -6.8dB to -16 dB NM. These BC stations are about 110 miles away. I was able to get a fuzzy picture from them when they were in VHF and at about 300 kW.

Currently my old Radio Shack VU-190 once in a while shows a signal blimp on my Artec DTV converter box for that RF channel 22 at -6.8dB, but it's too weak to get a picture lock.. so I'm hopefully with either the 91XG or CM3023 I have a hope of picking up at least that one channel (if not more).
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 5:04 PM   #12
Billiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 380
Check out this link.

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

Net Gain for UHF Only antennas. Antenna L shows real world gain figures for the 3023 aka the 4228. The 91XG is a very good antenna but its gain on the lower UHF channels is a couple db lower than the 3023. I've used both and my own tests on channel 17, 19, 21 and 24 confirms this.
Billiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 6:06 PM   #13
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam View Post
Check out this link.

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

Net Gain for UHF Only antennas. Antenna L shows real world gain figures for the 3023 aka the 4228. The 91XG is a very good antenna but its gain on the lower UHF channels is a couple db lower than the 3023. I've used both and my own tests on channel 17, 19, 21 and 24 confirms this.
Yes, I've been to that HDTVPRIMER site and even mentioned it in my earlier post about my concern for low-UHF channels and two people (see above posts) say that the 91XG is still better than the PR-8800, which is better than the CM 3023...

So your findings conflict with the other two people who wrote me above saying the 91XG is fine for low UHF as well.. hmm.... I dont know what to make of that...

... but again, the CM 3023 shows it's range is spec-ed up to 45 miles, while the 91GX goes to 70+ miles...

What was your broadcast tower distance in miles when you did your comparisons at those low UHF channels?

Also, that chart shows at channel 24 and higher, then the 91GX beats the CM 3023...
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 6:10 PM   #14
Billiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 380
Mileage comparisons for antennas are generally a sales gimmick.

My channel 17 is 85 miles away and a 2 edge signal. I also have a channel 15 that is 74 miles away and that was also improved with the CM 3023. The other signals are semi local at around 35 to 40 miles.

The 91XG is a decent antenna on the lower channels but if you need maximum gain then the best antenna out there right now is the CM 3023. Unless you can get your hands on a CM 4251 7 foot parabolic dish (now discontinued) you won't find a better retail store antenna for UHF low than the CM3023.
Billiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 8:30 PM   #15
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,749
Back to your original request for help with reception of Canadian stations in Victoria and Vancouver, BC... http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...60b56f2de6febd

CHAN, real channel 22 will have significant co-channel interference when KCPQ builds their CH-22 transmitter on Capitol Hill.

CBUT, real channel 43 is predicted to arrive at your location with a NM of -10.7 dB but that does not include the effect of the adjacent channel interference from KFFV, real channel 44.

As you go down the list further, the prospects for Canadian channels gets even worse.

From your location, a 260' tower and a Wade PB-81-BB or PB-82-BB would offer line of sight access and possibly the F/B ratio and directivity needed to receive several of the Canadian signals.

A remotely operated HTPC or SlingBox in Bellingham would seem more piratical, IMO.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 27-Sep-2011 at 2:12 AM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 11:05 PM   #16
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
So what's your NM dB signal for those two distance 70+ mile broadcasters?
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-Sep-2011, 11:11 PM   #17
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
Back to your original request for help with reception of Canadian stations in Victoria and Vancouver, BC...

CHAN, real channel 22 will have significant co-channel interference when KCPQ builds their CH-22 transmitter on Capitol Hill.

CBUT, real channel 43 is predicted to arrive at your location with a NM of -10.7 dB but that does not include the effect of the adjacent channel interference from KFFV, real channel 44.

As you go down the list further, the prospects for Canadian channels gets even worse.

From your location, a 260' tower and a Wade PB-81-BB or PB-82-BB would offer line of sight access and possibly the F/B ratio and directivity needed to receive several of the Canadian signals.

A remotely operated HTPC or SlingBox in Bellingham would seem more piratical, IMO.
Arg.. I hope it's not "hopeless." I guess we won't know until I try it out with new antenna... If I can't pick up those BC stations, I guess I'll have to give up and be content with getting KVOS RF 35 at 63 miles away...

Just for fun, I put my location on top of Everett's Boeing plant and got like all PLUS value dBs for those stations, for example, CHAN RF 22, showed up with like 8dB, etc... nice.. location... wish it was residential so I could move into that location.. it must be at top of hill.

Also, a few nights back, I got a "blip" of a signal on meter bar (but not watchable) on these Vancouver stations (RF 17, 26, 24 from Orcas Island, and 43)... so must be isotropic atmosphere to give me that "blip." It lasted all night.. but because of my mutiple cable run and probably 3 combiners, I lost maybe 10 db from the cable run?? I really need to just buy a 100 feet RG 6 cable and hook it directly from antenna to TV tuner and see if that helps.

Last edited by be236; 26-Sep-2011 at 11:43 PM.
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Sep-2011, 2:01 AM   #18
Billiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by be236 View Post
So what's your NM dB signal for those two distance 70+ mile broadcasters?
Ch. 15 which is 74 miles is a plus 9.7. Ch. 17 which is 85 miles is a minus 9.8.
Billiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Sep-2011, 2:22 AM   #19
be236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiam View Post
Ch. 15 which is 74 miles is a plus 9.7. Ch. 17 which is 85 miles is a minus 9.8.
Ah ha! If you can receive a -9.8 dB, then that gives me hope to receive my -6.8 and maybe -10 dB signals from 110 miles away.
be236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Sep-2011, 2:39 AM   #20
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,749
Put some metal in the air.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Help With Reception


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © TV Fool, LLC