Nice performing ATSC/DTV antenna
 

So, I was searching reviews of various amplified DTV antenna's a few weeks back and found that this Winegard FL-5500 had received some good praise. I bought a factory re-furb off eBay and tested it out and I must say it works quite well. I also really like that it takes power off the USB port on the TV (or the supplied wall wart). It actually pulled in more watchable stations than my other rotating yagi-type rotating amp'd antenna, so the amp part being extremely low noise must be part of the reception "key". So for $30 delivered, I consider it a very good deal and performer. The refurb'd product number is FL-55YR. Stated range is ~~ 50 miles, but it picked up a Vermont PBS station which is 75+ miles which I could never receive before.

Cheers,

Tom (PK)

Wish that little toy antenna would work for me.....

.

I just purchased, on eBay, a Zenith amplified VHF-UHF indoor DTV antenna. Looks like a set of garden-variety all-channel rabbit ears, but this antenna also has a built-in amplifier, with a wall-wart power supply. I am purchasing this antenna in hopes of remedying a pesky reception problem I have here: two Cleveland TV stations that transmit their DTV signals on high VHF channels. My small ClearTV antenna picks up all Cleveland TV stations, except the two that operate on VHF channels 8 and 10; wouldn't you know it, these channels are the two I watch the most, as their subchannels are AntennaTV and MeTV, respectively. I am about 35 miles east of the TV stations' towers. I don't want to go to the trouble of erecting an outdoor antenna, and would like to "cut the (cable) cord" once and for all, if at all possible.

My question: Will an antenna actually designed for high VHF and UHF (two 39-inch active dipoles for VHF and a UHF loop), combined with the amplifier in the antenna's base, bring in the two VHF channels my other indoor DTV antenna does not? I am hoping for the best, considering that I get all the other Cleveland stations amazingly well using the ClearTV antenna. I think my biggest problem with receiving the two high-VHF signals I mentioned is that the ClearTV antenna is not designed for reception of signals below 470 MHz (or whatever the low end of the UHF TV band is today), whereas the Zenith amplified DTV antenna has two 39-inch dipole elements for high VHF. I realize I may not receive the station that transmits on channel 10 due to geography and/or other issues (many people living in far-suburban areas east or west of the city have reported, on the station's website and elsewhere, being unable to receive the station's digital signal OTA), but since this little antenna only set me back something like $7, I feel I have little to lose by trying it. If the problem is simply that the channel 10 signal is too weak, the amplifier in the antenna base should take care of it in short order.

I don't know how much gain (in decibels) this amplifier has, but if it is any appreciable figure (more than a few dB), I would think it should bring in both channels; if not perfectly, I should at least receive something with a proper antenna. As I said, for $6.59 I can't go far wrong. I'll post my test results when the antenna arrives and I've had a chance to check it out.

For VHF bigger is almost always better. (Or at least longer.) The flat panel type like your ClearTV are really designed for the UHF end of things. I'd be willing to wager that a non-amplified pair of normal rabbit-ears at full extension can do a better job on the high VHF than the amplified ClearTV. For VHF I stick with rabbit ears, and UHF you really can't beat a "bow-ties and an oven-rack" style unit. Overall I think your latest acquisition will outperform the ClearTV. Amplification isn't the end-all-be-all, especially with ATSC signals. Because of the spectral distribution the transmitter power is spread out over the whole damned 6MHz slot, versus a "visual carrier, aural carrier" distribution used in the analog days. These days amplifiers tend to amplify the noise as much as any remaining signal. The real place for amp use is when you have one big sky-rake on the roof and are trying to feed multiple TVs, or if you have to cable more than about 70 feet from antenna to tuner. (Or if you're unable to upgrade some old lossy crappy RG59.) Placing the amp up at the antenna means that the losses in the cabling are offset by increased signal. The adage that states: "You can't polish a turd." applies here.

I believe it is Shango 66 who has a good video on youtube on making VHF transmit antennas for blonder tongue agile modulators (an optimal transmit antenna is also an optimal receive antenna). You could probably build a better one your self than you could buy. Thicker diameter wire gives better band width, and if you make a folded dipole you can use a 300-75ohm matching transformer to better match it to your coax connection lead. You would probably need to make 2 dipoles (one for each of the tricky channels), but that should be a better option than an indoor multichannel antenna.

You must be located in a fringe or deep-fringe TV reception area, in which nothing short of a high-power roof-mounted antenna with a mast-mounted preamplifier and possibly a rotator, if the stations you want to receive transmit from different directions or areas, will work. This is similar to the antenna setup most people had to use in television's early days, although if you were close to a major city you could get by with rabbit ears.

It will be interesting to see what you think of the antenna a year or so from now, after going through the seasons.
My sad story:
A couple of summers ago I "installed" a 32" HDTV in the "quilting room" for my wife. Being only about 12 miles (and line of sight, except for a few trees) from the the towers, I decided to use a "high gain" amplified indoor antenna in the room. This saved me the effort of running coax to the room from our outdoor antenna. Picture on all channels looked great but signal strength on some channels was less than 80%. Things were fine until a wind/rain storm hit during a football game that she was watching. There was at times more "dropout" than picture! Hastily, I ran some coax down the hallway from the living to keep her happy. Even at this short distance, I find that indoor antennas offer me only "most of the channels, most of the time in most of the rooms". Phooey! :thumbsdn:

jr

At 12 miles you could be overloading the "high gain" amp.


I have stations from 11 to 40 miles, and need a modestly high gain (16 dB at peak) amp for my indoor (but second floor) antenna. Cheap
high gain ones overload badly due to the 11 mile station with
the antenna necessarily facing right at it. The 11 and 40 mile stations
are in the same line. I had to buy a GaAsFet preamp.

Possibly, but as soon as the wind stopped blowing, reception on the UHF channel(s) returned to "normal". Rain soaked wind-blown trees are apparently *not* good for UHF DTV reception.

jr

Zenith indoor amplified DTV antenna test
 

The new Zenith indoor DTV antenna arrived here yesterday, January 26, 2015. I spent much of the day testing the antenna, and was very diasppointed in the results. Without the amplifier, this antenna is even worse than my ClearTV flat one. Even with the separate VHF dipoles, I still do not receive channels 8 (RF channel 8) and 19 (RF channel 10). I was hoping the reason I wasn't receiving those channels was that my ClearTV antenna is for UHF DTV channels only, not VHF (although one ad I read online for the antenna did state that it would receive high VHF as well as UHF), and that the channel 10 signal was getting here but was just too weak (the reason I bought this particular antenna, which has a variable-gain amplifier in the base; the gain control is an illuminated thumbwheel control located at the lower center portion of the antenna housing).

The Zenith antenna's performance on UHF is comparable to the ClearTV; however, I still need the amplifier to get every station in the area. I was able to receive every local TV station except 8 and 19 with excellent picture quality. I'm sure the reason for this is that most Cleveland TV stations now transmit on UHF DTV channels, while the two I do not receive are still on VHF channels. There are no plans, that I am aware of anyway, for either station to move to a UHF channel, although channel 19 (RF channel ten) does have a UHF translator on channel 36, IIRC, designed to cover an area about sixty miles southwest of here. (I am about 30 miles east of downtown Cleveland, and perhaps another 10 miles or so further from the area's TV transmitters.)

The Zenith antenna does not receive the channel 36 signal at all, even with the amplifier, but then again I was not expecting to pick up that station from here since it is a low-power translator, designed to cover an area that lost channel 19's DTV signal after the transition in June 2009. It was never intended to cover any other area, especially anywhere as far east as where I live. I am about one mile from the southern shore of Lake Erie.

I am not surprised, however, that the Zenith amplified DTV all-channel antenna does not receive the channel 19 (RF 10) DTV signal. I read not too long ago on the station's web site that it would be almost impossible to move the signal from channel 10 to a UHF assignment (even though I'm sure they wish they could, as there is a real possibility of co-channel interference between that station and a channel 10 station in Canada), and that Cleveland's channel 19 is now receivable in most areas only on cable or satellite. The Canadian station will not move its signal from RF channel 10; the channel 19 website had an explanation for that, but I don't recall it right now. Probably has something to do with international frequency assignments or agreements. When I finish writing this I'll look at the station's website again, and reread the section dealing with OTA reception problems; there may be a way I can get the station's DTV signal using an indoor antenna after all.

One other problem I had with the Zenith antenna is that the coax lead-in cable is only 48 inches long (and the coax itself is very small in diameter; in fact, I have my doubts as to whether it is actually coax, or just cheap shielded wire). This prevented me from placing the antenna near a window, as is usually suggested for best results with antennas of this type; I'm sure if I were able to put it near the front windows in my apartment, I would probably, even likely have better reception, and I might even see a bit of a picture from channel 8 and/or 19.

I will try the Zenith DTV antenna again this spring and summer, hoping for better results. While I probably will receive more stations from Detroit and southwestern Ontario, as I did with the ClearTV DTV antenna last year, I'm not expecting miracles as far as my two missing Cleveland stations are concerned. I'm almost convinced that the reason I am not receiving those stations has to do with distance, geography, or both.

According to the FCC, the low power WOIO translator that covers Akron transmits on channel 24 *not* channel 36: http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/tv...=0&facid=39746

You might want to splice in some longer coax and try again nearer windows, making sure that you try ch 24. Good luck!

jr

Why not just put the DTV box and antenna near the windows (or better yet try it in various locations to see if there is a signal sweet spot someplace in your apt.), and run the video out of the box to your TV...It is the next best thing to moving the TV and the rest of the works to the best place for reception.

I do not use a DTV box, as my TV is a flat panel which has a built in DTV tuner. (BTW, my CRT sets do not work at all with my Zenith antenna; I tried it with my RCA CTC185 set, and the tuner just went from channel 2 to the highest channel it can receive and looped back to 2, repeating the cycle, without stopping.) I am just about ready to give up on this experiment, since everything I've tried has not worked, well or at all.

The translator I mentioned is not intended to cover the area in which I live. That translator, as I mentioned in my previous post, was installed to cover the Akron, Ohio area, which is about sixty miles southwest of here. Channel 19 even increased its ERP transmitter output power so that its signal will reach that area, until such time as the station can move to a UHF channel. I read some time ago (not long after the DTV transition) in a TV technology newsletter I get in my email that there was a similar problem with a station in Philadelphia. The station's owner finally had to apply for a power increase so that the station's DTV signal would cover the entire metropolitan area.

I wonder why DTV stations cannot transmit at the same high ERP power level as when those stations were operating as NTSC analog stations. Channel eight in Cleveland, for example, had a 312-kW ERP NTSC analog signal. Channel 19 had a 3.7 kW ERP analog signal, but even before DTV that station had problems reaching some far-suburban areas east and west of the city, including the Cleveland suburb in which I lived at the time. The problem was made much worse, IMO, when a lightning strike took the station off the air six months after it initially signed on; the station's signal was never the same after that.

Now the station is having the same problems with its DTV signal's coverage area. No, the DTV transmitter was never struck by lightning that I was ever aware of, but the nature of DTV signals is such that they are much weaker than analog ones ever were. This means better antennas and/or cable or satellite must be employed to receive a decent signal from any station transmitting in this format--meaning every TV station in this country, including translator stations later on this year.

I would think that, since channel 19 is a CBS network affiliate, they would have had a commanding signal from the first day they hooked up with the network; after all, CBS is a major U. S. TV network viewed by tens of thousands of people every day. CBS, indeed, every U. S. television network, should have a requirement that any station affiliated with that network must have a signal that covers the station's entire broadcast area, or else it won't get the affiliation in that station's area.

On the other hand, channel 43, the other UHF station in Cleveland, had a 5-megawatt ERP analog signal and had a chance to affiliate with CBS after channel 8 dropped that network in the mid-'90s and went to FOX, but for some reason they turned it down. I believe this was a terrible mistake, considering the fact that 43 had a much stronger analog signal and would cover a larger area (including Akron and the surrounding area) than 19 could ever hope for. I don't know how powerful 43's DTV signal is, but I think it must be much more so than 19's 3.7 kW ERP one.

Where is it cast in stone that a UHF DTV signal cannot be at least as powerful (in the millions of watts) as the VHF analog NTSC signal it replaces? :scratch2: Television broadcasting, after all, is a big-money business; the networks depend on their affiliates reaching the largest possible audience, which translates to more advertising revenue. The networks cannot afford to have affiliates that cannot, for any reason, reach every corner of their viewing area; in fact, some stations have lost network affiliations because of signals that are far too weak to cover their entire broadcasting area.

Well perhaps you should get a good DTV converter box such as one of the Zenith/insignia/LG boxes. I've heard that most sets with built in DTV tuners have crappy ones. So it may be your set's tuner holding it back. You already have a DVD player and VCR connected to it IIRC so connecting an outboard DTV box should not be an issue.

Plug your information into www.antennaweb.org and make sure that the channel you're having issues with isn't a "Violet" signal.

The most powerful DTV stations ARE as powerful as the
most powerful analog ones, at least on high VHF and
UHF.

That's because NTSC stations are rated at peak sync tip power and
DTV ones are average power.

I just went to antennaweb.org, logged in, and saw that the channel I am not receiving isn't shown in the list of stations I should be receiving here. That struck me as rather odd; after all, channel 19 is a major TV network affiliate (CBS), and so should have a DTV signal that covers every bit as much area as the analog one did. Because of this (that the station isn't listed as one of the channels normally received in my area), I don't know whether it would be shown with a violet marker on the channel list. The ERP analog transmitter output for this station, as shown on the FCC's listings, is 3.1 kilowatts; the DTV signal's ERP either is not mentioned or I didn't see it in the listing the first time around. I'll have to look at it again; it could very well be that the DTV power level is substantially lower than the analog ERP was.

I do remember reading somewhere that it can be very difficult to receive channel 19's DTV signal in some far-suburban/near-fringe areas without a large, fringe-area antenna. The fact that 19's DTV signal is being transmitted on VHF channel ten isn't helping matters much either. It strikes me as odd, again, that the station was assigned a high-VHF channel for its DTV transmissions, when most TV stations in this area (and nationwide) are now on UHF DTV channels. There is a Canadian television station, almost due north of Cleveland across Lake Erie, on the same channel as channel 19's DTV assignment; this is causing some problems for both stations, in the form of co-channel interference during temperature inversions and other seasonal conditions that cause TV signals to travel hundreds or even thousands (!) of miles beyond their normal service area.

As I mentioned in my last post, channel 19's owner and licensee, Raycom Communications, applied for and was granted permission to increase the station's ERP power level substantially so as to cover the Akron, Ohio area as close to reliably as possible. This power increase is, IMO, a poor solution to the problem (my experience as an amateur radio operator tells me that a more reliable way to increase the range of an RF signal is to raise or improve the antenna system--not to rely on a power increase while using the same antenna system), but apparently the station is doing it this way until such time as they can move their DTV signal to a UHF channel, whenever that may be.



Unfortunately, however, even that power increase is not enough (nowhere near) to remedy the reception problems in areas to the far east and far west of the station's antenna towers in the Cleveland suburb of Parma. :no: The only way, again, that the station is going to even come close to ending these reception problems is to move its signal to a UHF channel. All other TV stations in this area are on UHF DTV assignments, and I can receive them quite well at my apartment using the Zenith amplified DTV indoor antenna. I was experimenting with the antenna earlier today and found that, with the antenna in one certain spot, I could receive 24 DTV channels, but not channel 8 (RF 8) or 19 (RF 10). Some of the stations I am receiving are stations listed in Antennaweb's charts with a violet marker, meaning that a high-power, amplified outdoor antenna must be used to get reliable reception of said stations. Why I am getting these stations "just like downtown" with an indoor antenna is beyond me, but I'm not complaining.

Since I watch channels 8 and 19 most of the time (their subchannels carry Antenna TV and MeTV, respectively), however, I have gone back to cable for the time being, until such time as the reception difficulties at both stations are no longer a problem in my area. Since these stations are almost certainly losing a substantial number of viewers due to these reception problems (many people cannot afford cable, even broadcast basic cable, or satellite, and so have no other choice but to use an antenna), I would hope the stations' owners would do whatever they had to do to improve their signals so that they will cover the entire northeastern Ohio area with few or no gaps or dead spots. Any television station which is affiliated with a major network, after all, cannot afford to be in a situation in which some parts of what should be its normal reception area do not get a usable signal from that station. I'm sure channels 8 and 19 are losing goodness only knows how much advertising revenue because of these reception problems; for that reason, again, I hope they do whatever is necessary to resolve these difficulties.

I don't think the amount of lost revenue will be anywhere near enough to put the stations out of business (both are owned and operated by large media groups), but it isn't doing them any good, either. CBS is currently America's #1-rated TV network, so it is very important that its affiliates reach as much of their coverage area as possible.

[EDIT- Correcting myself - 5 MW analog is correct - I really did not recall that.] Have to check, but I don't think I've heard of a 5 MW analog station - I think the limit was 1 or 2 MW.

Current limit for high UHF digital is 1 MW, but that can be restricted on the east coast where geographic packing is tighter.

VHF digital is a problem with low allowed ERPs because the FCC planning software did not take ambient noise into account correctly. VHF is also a problem because if you do turn up the power, you get enough over-horizon propagation to cause interference to other VHF stations on the same channel.

Right here on the FCC site, 3.5 kW ERP:

" Licensee: WOIO LICENSE SUBSIDIARY, LLC
Service Designation: DT Digital television station

Transmit Channel: 10 192 - 198 MHz Licensed
Virtual Channel: 19 (viewer sees this channel number)

Network affiliation: CBS

File No.: BLCDT-19991110AAR Facility ID number: 39746
CDBS Application ID No.: 428322

41° 23' 15.00" N Latitude Site in Canadian Border Zone
81° 41' 43.00" W Longitude (NAD 27)

Polarization: Circular (H = V)
Effective Radiated Power (ERP): 3.5 kW ERP
Antenna Height Above Average Terrain: 304. meters HAAT -- Calculate HAAT
Antenna Height Above Mean Sea Level: 567. meters AMSL
Antenna Height Above Ground Level: 293. meters AGL"

For another web study on reception in your area, try 'TV Fool", but I suspect the results will be about the same, however : http://www.tvfool.com/

jr

I also gather , from reading through some of the applications on the "Application List" that the station is indeed, now running 9.5 kW ERP (and has for several years) under the authority of a Special Temporary Authority (STA).

.

This is all well and good, but I cannot understand most of the information. That FCC website was intended for broadcast engineers, not ordinary people like myself. All I know or care about at this point is that I do not get channel 19 (or channel eight) without cable.

I also tried the other site you mentioned (TVFool.com), but I cannot use that one either because I do not know the latitude and longitude of the area in which I live. Isn't the name of the village (or the city closest to it) enough? Why do I have to mess with those other numbers? :scratch2: If channel 19 is running at 95 kilowatts, I should be getting it here just using a piece of wire connected to where the antenna goes, and I wouldn't have to use the amplifier in my DTV indoor antenna.

Honestly, I wish the FCC had left the country's television system alone. The old NTSC analog system served us well for over 50 years; now we have a DTV system that doesn't work for many people without cable. I like my TV, don't especially care anymore how my favorite shows get here (meaning I don't care about the technical stuff behind DTV), and do not appreciate all this trouble I have to go to just to get the two channels I watch more than any other TV station in Cleveland.

Is there any chance the FCC will realize what a flop DTV is in most areas, and revert to the NTSC analog system? At least with that system there was a picture if your TV signal was weak; with digital, it is all or nothing. I like DTV from the standpoint of a clearer picture and more channels, but I can do without the reception problems.


Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!!

The TV Fool website will take an address or even just a zip code... I tried it just using 44077 zip and it showed a *very* weak signal on channel 10 in the area. Address or coordinates should get results that are more specific to your location.
You must have miss-read the power that I stated; it is 9.5 kW ERP *not* 95!

jr

Don't hold your breath!

I do miss analog TV, and liked that old TVs were still able to operate on their own without external equipment, but I have to say that I also really enjoy free over-the-air HD. I also really like the extra sub-channels and the networks that have sprung up to occupy them.

It is a conundrum, to be sure. The all-or-nothing nature of digital certainly is a hassle, and the broadcast radius has shrunk when the stations went to DTV. In very rural areas, they have set up retransmission stations to help with coverage, but most other places just have smaller coverage area now.

9.5kW ERP probably means a transmitter output power of ~1500W. Hell, I just looked it up, its 1610 watts at the transmitter output. You're not going to get squat off of that at your bearing and range. (Remember, that power is spread evenly over the WHOLE 6MHz channel slot, and the gain of the antenna only helps you if the main lobe is pointed towards you, which it isn't.) Don't worry though, the FCC is planning another re-shuffle and spectrum consolidation operation in the next few years.

I am not following you. It still doesn't make sense to me. Why would I not get the station at "my bearing and range", whatever that means? That television station, like every other Cleveland television station, is licensed to and is obligated to cover all of northeastern Ohio. What will I have to do to get the station, and channel eight, with an antenna, like I did years ago when I lived in an eastern Cleveland suburb? Even 15 years ago, when I moved here from that suburb, I could get channel 19 fairly well on an indoor antenna; in fact, that was the only station I could receive well enough to watch. Then, of course, all TV was still NTSC analog.

Channel 3 was the one station that I couldn't receive here; five, eight, 25, 43, 55, and 61 weren't that much better. This was in 1999, long before the DTV transition. I can get all the Cleveland stations on cable (Time Warner broadcast basic service), although I don't especially like that due to the rate increases every year. That was why I bought the Zenith indoor DTV antenna; I was hoping I could do away with cable for good. Is there any kind of indoor TV antenna that will bring in every TV station in my area, including eight and 19, or am I stuck with cable and its rate increases? :scratch2: I don't want to have to bother with erecting an outdoor antenna.

BTW, I wonder why the Zenith antenna doesn't work at all on one of my NTSC analog televisions. I realize there is no more analog TV since the transition, but I was hoping I would at least see a translator station or two; however, as I mentioned in my post, when I connect the antenna to my RCA TV and do a channel scan, the tuner goes from channel 2 to the highest channel it will receive, without stopping. If left alone, the tuner then loops back to channel 2 and will repeat the cycle indefinitely. I know the TV is working, as I can connect it to the cable outlet in my bedroom and it receives every station on the cable.

I have not tried the Zenith antenna on my nearly-20-year-old Zenith SMS1917SG 19" CRT TV, although if I did I would probably, almost certainly, get the same results I had with my RCA set.

It was suggested to me by someone in this thread that I consider using an ATSC-to-NTSC converter box with my Insignia 19" flat screen, which already has its own clear-QAM tuner. My question is simply this: Are the QAM tuners built into many if not most flat screens that terrible as far as RF sensitivity is concerned?

I may take a look on eBay tonight to see if I can find a reasonably good DTV converter box. Are there any particular brands I should avoid? I've read here that some off-brand converters, such as Apex and even Magnavox-branded boxes, are poor choices because of low RF sensitivity and that they run hot, contributing to early failure. Are there any really good DTV boxes still available, or has the market more or less dried up since new flat screen TVs can be purchased at dirt-cheap prices now? I've seen some flat screens selling for well under $100; I saw one recently in an ad flyer in my Sunday paper that was selling for $88. Even large-screen flat panels are selling for far less than they were even as recently as a year ago; I saw a 32" Insignia TV in a Best Buy ad that was priced at $130--the same price I paid for my 19" Insignia almost four years ago. Makes me think at least twice before considering having my set repaired if it someday needs service. This set has given me excellent service so far, though; I'm not expecting any trouble with it, but if and when it does go bad I'd likely be better off buying a new one, especially since finding out I can get a larger screen today for the same money I paid for my set back in 2011, and they are likely to keep coming down in price--so why bother having a set repaired anymore once it's out of warranty?

"It was suggested to me by someone in this thread that I consider using an ATSC-to-NTSC converter box with my Insignia 19" flat screen, which already has its own clear-QAM tuner. My question is simply this: Are the QAM tuners built into many if not most flat screens that terrible as far as RF sensitivity is concerned? "

Clear QAM tuners are only for unscrambled digital cable, not for over the air. QAM is not broadcast over the air, only ATSC 8-VSB. As most cable companies are taking to scrambling everything, there may not even be any clear QAM signals on your local cable system anymore.

My cable operator is Time Warner. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they have no intention at this time of scrambling everything on the cable, thereby forcing all subscribers to use a cable box ahead of the television to receive anything at all. (Comcast does require boxes now, and Time Warner would today as well if their merger with Comcast had materialized, which it did not.)

I have broadcast basic service (not digital). The cable connects directly to my VCR, which in turn is connected directly to the TV. There are no descrambler boxes or anything else, again to the best of my knowledge, between the cable coming into my apartment and the VCR. If there are such devices being used by the company, they are probably on the utility pole outside my apartment or hidden away in a junction box in the basement of the building. I'm sure Time Warner would have notified me by now if they had any intention whatsoever of scrambling absolutely everything, including broadcast channels.

Sorry, not gonna happen. The FCC wants much of the TV bands for other things anyway. Channels 52 to 82 became cell phone territory. And some for the police and fire depts, since 9-11. IIRC, channels 14 to around 16 in New York City are used for police and fire comms.

"That television station, like every other Cleveland television station, is licensed to and is obligated to cover all of northeastern Ohio."

Not true... There is an FCC-regulated obligation to have a certain level of signal in the stations "city of License" which is Shaker Heights but absolutely *no* obligation to cover all of northeastern Ohio.

" What will I have to do to get the station, and channel eight, with an antenna, like I did years ago when I lived in an eastern Cleveland suburb? "

Move! Sorry for the flippant sounding answer, but lets review the facts, you have tried 3 different indoor antennas that provided no reception on these 2 channels. Online reception prediction sites basically are predicting no reception with an indoor antenna, and you seem reluctant to install a proper outdoor antenna.

" Even 15 years ago, when I moved here from that suburb, I could get channel 19 fairly well on an indoor antenna"

According to information on the FCC site, at one time channel 19 had 3700 kW (YES 3.7 Million watts) of analog power... I don't know the history here (money problems, poor engineering, whatever) but they ended with 3.5 kW (or perhaps 9.5 kW by authority of a STA) on channel 10, which is limited in power because of a channel 10 in Canada... It seems to me as if some poor choices were made.

jr

You have completely confused me. First you talk about inability to get over the air channels, then you bring up clear QAM, which is only for cable. Why are you asking about how good your clear QAM tuner is? Are you saying:
1) My TV has a tuner that can do BOTH clear QAM and over-the air VSB, and
2) I have heard that tuners that do both clear QAM and over the air are not very good at over-the air (?)

If that is your question, the answer is that both dual-purpose and single purpose tuners may be better or worse depending on the design. Being dual-purpose does not necessarily mean poor over-the-air results; but, a tuner with poor threshold would show a deficit on over-the-air sooner than on cable, which should have a decent signal strength.

Not to be curt, but your situation is exactly why cable television came into existence. Yes, I get drop-outs sometimes and you can physically see the transmitters through the window above the set. Yes, in the days of NTSC I could pickup color programs off the antenna screws. All that's gone forever.
I'm currently planning a move out of town into a more rural area. While I will most certainly install some huge antenna to play with, I do not expect to reliably receive ATSC 30-50 miles out, and am prepared to subscribe to cable again if needed. I know you're in an apartment, so unfortunately your choices are to accept what OTA you can receive, keep cable or move back to Cleveland. Nothing short of a big rooftop job is going to pull in that CBS affiliate. :(

Funny, now that I think of it most apts. I've lived in had a big ol' antenna on the roof...If yours does actually have a roof or attic antenna it might be worth plugging into.

Amplified DTV Antenna.
 

I hit the thrift shops rather often. I buy various makes of DTV converters, amplified set-top antennas and amplified splitters, conparison use. Most of the set-tops, flat panels and miracle antennas are disappointing, at best.
The only one I found that works, what I consider good is the Terk, that looks like a Yagi design. My home is 37-40 miles from the Milwaukee transmitter site. I get, all the UHF based channels and the subs 96% of the time. Weather conditions, in the area affect it. I have it on the closet shelf and it must be a sweet spot.
BTW, when I first moved here, 11 years ago, the only analogue channels that I could receive with a set-top antenna was channel 6 and 24, that was watchable.
The E place has the Antenna for various prices from $14.00 to $68.00, but watch the shipping charges, when You bid.

The apartment building where I live has never had an outdoor TV antenna, nor any kind of master antenna system, that I was ever aware of. The building was wired for cable probably several years before I moved here. I don't see any evidence of any kind of MATV installation; if there was one, the antenna probably fell apart years or decades ago.

I like to test antennas with a Zenith/insignia/LG converter box, since if you dive into the menus and select the manual add/delete channels mode (which also lets one directly tune the RF channel) there is a signal strength meter. With that meter one can swap antennas and play with their aiming while seeing a good quantification of the difference.
It's also handy for DX since one can look for stations too weak to get picked up on a scan, and try to optimize the antenna aim to get it strong enough to perhaps be received.

Nice! but do you receive The high band VHF channel (WMVS ch 8) from Milwaukie? At a distance, people seem to have a lot more problems receiving the VHF channels, while the much higher power UHF can be pretty decent (weather permitting).
Terk HDTVa? My wife was using one of those in her Sewing/Quilting room until a strong wind/rain storm killed reception during an important football game. We live only about 12 miles from the TV towers. I had egg on my face as I quickly ran coax down the hallway to connect her set up to an outside antenna :(

edit add; link to Terk HDTVa, note the VHF dipoles on the sides : http://www.crutchfield.com/p_209HDTV...a.html?tp=3261

not affiliated,
jr

The indoor antenna I like to recommend is the old Radio Shack
double bowtie.

Attachment 185639

However, all is lost if you leave the leadin like that.
You MUST attach the 300 ohm side of balun thingie
to the antenna with leads that
are no more than one inch longer than necessary.

Only the Terk came even close to this thing's
performance, and this is much better.

The WMVS channel 8's, which is 10-1,2 and three only come in once in a while. I really don't need them, as they're re-broadcast on 36-1,2,3 etc and they come in perfectly. I'm using a Zenith DTV converter. The only one that seems to come close is the Digital Stream and the Channel Master.
My RCA prison-vision sets seem to do a fair job, with just an inside antenna.

Best DTV converter box?
 

I may be considering getting a DTV converter box for one of my CRT TVs. Which of the boxes you mention (Zenith, DigitalStream, Channel Master) would you recommend? I ask because I have read and heard that some DTV boxes (in particular, Magnavox-branded, Apex, et al.) overheat, leading to premature failure, some boxes are very bad from an RF sensitivity standpoint, and some are just plain garbage. I don't want to get stuck with a box that will quit days or weeks (!) after I install it, or that doesn't receive all the DTV stations in my area (I live in a semi-fringe area for OTA reception of DTV). I would much rather use a DTV box and an antenna than a cable box if my cable operator (Time Warner, which is in the process of merging with Comcast) decides to force all of its subscribers to use such a box, as Comcast has done already.

Thanks much.

I chose the Channel Master CM-7000's mainly due to the good reviews of their performance (RF sensitivity being one of the best) and 2nd that it was one of the few to have S-video output. Since I have 2 sets with S-video inputs, that was important to me for best possible video/least noise. If you want to drive a vintage TV through the antenna, then that feature is moot.

Tom (PK)

The original units I bought was Digital Stream and Zenith at Radio Shack. The first Magnavoxes weren't very impressive. The remote was very poorly laid out. The second generation was a little better, but all Funai built units are totally useless without a remote. I have all three generations, the latest being a little hotter. :yes: