Carbondale Illinois
 

Southern Illinois
TV Fool report help request

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...d243249a01fb59

I have two Channel Master DVR+ units, and I would like to know what recommendations you may have for a new installation.

Roof mount mast about 25 feet above grade.
My preference is to not have a rotor.

I am interested in virtual channels 3,6,8,12 and 23.

Is it possible to do this with one antenna and NO rotor?

If a directional antenna is required, is there sufficient signal strength to combine two antennas?

Is there any hope of St. Louis stations :D (with a rotor)?

I should add that I can receive 3, 8, 12 & 23 with a ramshackle (bent and loose) antique roof mounted directional antenna, without a rotor (I could receive 6 before the “windstorm of ‘08” damaged the antenna). I haven’t done any testing since the analog/digital transmission change, but I needed a rotor with analog transmissions to get clear reception.

This is a rural area. It's hilly and forested, but I am on high ground. A little movement of the antenna location changes the report, so I am guessing the results are questionable?

I have a rotor, and the house is wired for rotor controls, but I want unattended recording if possible

As I understand it, these are some possible options:
-Omni
-Multiple fixed antennas with combiner
-Multiple fixed antennas with A/B switch
-Single directional with rotor

Are there any affordable ways to coordinate antenna rotor control and station selection on the tuner?

One antenna and no rotator....no, unless you want to try about 30 times, tabulate the results, and then go back to the best aiming. Expect some pixelization on at least one station.

Two antennas....no. You have major stations in four directions.

St Louis is too weak for any reception.

I think you can do it with a two antenna system and no rotor. It won't be cheap, though, and there are uncertainties.

First off, scratch all the UHF WSIU listings. At last report, WSIU had no funds to build them and they construction permits are sitting out there un-built. It's been more than a year since I spoke with the CE at WSIU, but I've seen no indication that any of them were ever constructed.

You need to receive the following:

WSIL VC 3.x ABC UHF 34 93°
WPSD VC 6.x NBC UHF 32 150°

From Cape:
KFVS VC 12.x CBS VHF 12 219°
KBSI VC 23.x Fox UHF 22 223°

From DuQuoin direction:
WSIU VC 8.x PBS VHF 8 5°

Antenna 1: DB8e with one panel aimed at Cape, the other at a 90° angle and facing the general direction towards Paducah (~130°)

Antenna 2: ClearStream 5 with the reflector removed. That makes the antenna bi-directional with two 70° beam width lobes in opposite directions which should cover both the Cape and DuQuoin directions.

As an experimental alternative, you could try an unaltered C5 by itself and experiment with it's aiming direction. It's sort of omnidirectional on UHF and it often suffices in areas such as yours. I'd probably alternately aim it north and southwest to see if you can pick up the weakest VHF signal off the front while picking up the other VHF signal off the back plus your UHF channels. You might be pleasantly surprised at how well it actually works on UHF. Our office is in St Loius where we only have UHF signals, but the boss and I installed a C5 aimed at Jeff City with a CPA19 preamp about three years ago as a test. We could only get KRCG early in the morning (before the background noise levels came up) but the C5 worked so well on the local UHF stations that we never swapped it out for any of our other UHF antennas.

Among the uncertainties are trees. Weak UHF signals are most severely affected, especially when the trees are wet and the wind is moving the limbs and foliage about. Anything you can do to get the antenna situated so that the UHF signal paths are free of trees will go a long way towards providing stable UHF reception.

I agree with TG regarding reception out of St Louis. The forecasted signal levels are too low. You might get intermittent or sporadic reception during unique weather conditions, but reliable reception can't be expected.