[ADTech]

(Note: I posted a similar question on another web site, and the only real response was from a sales tech at an antenna company, recommending one of their antennas. This site - TV Fool - looks like it might be a better place to get some advice.)

That's hardly an accurate depiction of our previous conversation: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/45-loc...cut-cable.html You indicated that you had spoken with a coworker so I double-checked her work and concurred, adding specific observations.

I read some articles about combining two antennas (UHF and H-VHF), and it sounds like a bit of work. Cutting cables to matching lengths, going through reverse splitters, matching impedances, etc. Is all that necessary? Is it as hard as it sounds?

It's actually very easy when you use a UVSJ combiner. Here's an example, just ignore the amp and power inserter if no preamp is in use. https://www.antennasdirect.com/cmss_...e_Antennas.pdf

Is there a single antenna that I could use to try to get all the stations on my wish list?

Maybe, but your VHF signals come from a substantially different direction than do your UHF signals. You'd have to use a relatively low gain (less focused) antenna and hope that you can split the difference while still maintaining reception of terrain-impaired signals. Such a scenario is pretty much impossible to predict, it would need to be considered an experiment whose outcome can only be demonstrated.

One error about the TV Fool report: I don't have line-of-site to the closer mountain. You'd have to be about 15 or 20 feet above the peak of my roof to have line of site. There is a small ridge about 250 yards south of me. The ridge itself doesn't block line of sight from my roof, but houses and trees on the ridge rise up high enough to block my line of sight.

That does complicate the estimates. Usually, it means that greater patience in trying available mounting locations and heights may be required.

I suspect that TV Fool's map software is looking at the elevation of the earth and isn't accounting for the elevation of houses and trees.

That is substantially correct, it's due to the limited resolution of the elevation data in use. The propagation software uses the terrain elevation data from the STRM mission that was done back in February 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttl...graphy_Mission). At its highest resolution the SRTM data effectively averages radar-mapped terrain elevation into either 30m or 100m squares. The propagation software then uses each of these virtual elevation points to calculate a line of sight signal path, then performs the necessary LRI calculations to come up with an estimate of received signal power for every transmitter within a given radius, then it sorts and displayed all that. It really is an engineering marvel that this site's creator came up with.

(I tried posting this once and it didn't seem to work. Trying a 2nd time. I hope this doesn't result in duplicate postings.)

I use the Lazarus add-on for Firefox, it keeps a record of recent posts as well as work-in-progrees and has saved me considerable time when posting goes awry. Highly recommended!