How powerfull is a 91xg compared to other antennas?

I'm new to this and I don't fully understand how much stronger in gain one antenna is compared to another.

I'm trying to decide between a 91xg and some of the Winegard antennas.

I know this question is hard to answer and is subjective to where you are at.

But lets say a 91xg is a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 in gain where would a Winegard HD7694P fall on that same scale just roughly.

Or if there is a really huge difference if a Winegard HD7694P was a 1 on a scale how much more powerful would the 91xg be?

I know this is a hard question to answer but I'm so new to this I can read the figures on the antennas but I don't fully understand the strength that these numbers mean.

I was hoping someone that knows a lot about antennas could easily ballpark that.

Thanks

Jim

Hi Jim,

In your situation, ABC is the more difficult station to acquire. You have one ABC station on ch 22 (NM=23.3 dB, 7.7 miles) and another on ch 51 (NM 21.9 dB, 21.9 miles). Both are 2-edge signals and are the same direction from your home (155 degrees, compass orientation). Gain estimates were obtained by averaging data from Winegard.com for the 7694P. Gain estimates for the XG-91 were obtained from Ken Nist's modeling (see: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html)

Comparing antenna gain on ch 22:
XG-91 10 dBd
7694P ~11 dBd

Comparing antenna gain on ch 51
Xg-91 13.5 dBd
7694P 10.7 dBd

The Winegard has +1 dBd advantage on ch 22 and the XG-91 has a +3dBd advantage on ch 51. IMO, these two antennas are very similar for acquiring ABC.

HTH,

Rick

When comparing antenna's, you have to compare apples to apples.

If you are in a fringe area, you need the antenna with the most directors / elements, and the highest amount of gain when it comes to a Winegard antenna.

By just picking the cheapest one and trying to compare it to the XG 91 - figuring that they might be about the same PRICE - doesn't mean that they will be about the same performance.

The 7694P is rated in a range of about 20 - 50 miles.

The XG 91 antenna is more of a long range (60 + miles) deep fringe antenna.

The only problem with the XG 91 is that it doesn't really work well below channel 21. Even with a amplifier, and it is highly directional.

http://winegard.com/kbase/upload/HD7694P.pdf
17 UHF directors / 11 VHF elements, and will receive some local signals down to about channel 8.

http://winegard.com/kbase/upload/HD7698P.pdf
35 active UHF directors / 25 VHF elements, and will receive better then the 7694 to ch 8.

http://winegard.com/kbase/upload/HD8200U.pdf
8200U - 35 active UHF directors and 34 VHF elements.

I was trying to avoid responding to this thread, but IDTRick only said part of it.

Because when we compare a XG-91 to a winegard 7694 P, we have to understand three things. (1) And XG-91 may not be the best general purpose UHF antenna, but it only starts to shine on UHF real channels 35 or above. And at that Tigerbangs deep deep fringe, it may be a better choice for those real channels 35 and above because of the superior gain it offers compared to the 7694P. (2) When we are dealing with channels that have TVFool reports of signal strengths 20 NM(db) and above, its more of a wash, either the winegard 7694p or the XG-91 will do equally well, meaning the more versatile combo VHF/UHF antenna is the better choice. (3) Which defaults back to the Tigerbands points, an XG-91 is only useful if it becomes the difference between receiving or not. But that point is reached at much lower NM(db)'s and is probably not typical of the average user.

JB,

We're talking Pittsburgh area with most of the stations under 10 miles. One station is 2-edge and has a modest NM on tvfool.

Ken Nist says the following about the XG-91 (from: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/XG91.html)

"High gain antennas like this one are big, hard to aim, and hard to keep up in bad weather. The author does not normally recommend this antenna inside 25 miles. But there are two exceptions to this:

1. A very high gain antenna might be necessary behind a hill or in a valley.
2. When an obstruction is causing multi-path, a very directional antenna such as this one can reject signal from the wrong directions."

The XG-91 is under consideration due to higher than average probability of multipath (hills in area, very strong signals with a four towers <4 miles away). The tilting ability of the XG-91 may improve ability to acquire the 2-edge signal for ABC.

I'm new to this and I don't fully understand how much stronger in gain one antenna is compared to another.

I'm trying to decide between a 91xg and some of the Winegard antennas.The 91-XG is about 10-15% better on UHF than the top of the line Winegard combos(8200 &7698) from reading what others have posted here.

I'm very pleased with mine, and found it can be quite useful in acquiring hard to get UHF channels, even when used in a strong signal environment. Overload shouldn't be a concern unless you are less than 2-3 miles from the transmitter(s).

I'm new to this and I don't fully understand how much stronger in gain one antenna is compared to another.



You can use antennaweb and TVfool, (with all the noise margin figures) along with posted gain specs on all the antennas - and still wind up with unexpected results.

I was just working on a problem channel at my in-laws - in Alpena, Michigan. They lost their channel 6 after the digital change (RF channel 24 on UHF). I tried a Winegard 9032 and also the 91XG along with several preamps. Both antennas got the channel but with persistant dropouts. I finally got better reception with a small, VHF/UHF combo antenna I bouht last year at Radio Shack. It's rated at approx. half the gain on channel 24, yet pulls it in better. Also got better results with the Radio Shack branded preamp over the Channel Master 7777 and the Winegard AP8275.

I'm not claiming things always go like this - but in this case, the little Radio Shack combo antenna works better then either of the big UHF only antennas on channel 24 - which is all we were trying to get. It's only 85" long, Radio Shack # 150-0264. Now, on the other hand . . . I had pulled that Radio Shack antenna off a house I own 50 miles away near Rogers City, Michigan. I replaced it with the big Winegard 8200 and got many more channels, including many more analog channels from Canada that I'd never gotten before. Furthest channels we now get are 120 miles away. Atennaweb.org said we'd get around three channels, and we now get over 20.

I'm new to this and I don't fully understand how much stronger in gain one antenna is compared to another...

Jim, this is how dB equates to power:
dB = 10* Log (Power In / Power Out)

So if you do the math, a 1dB difference = 20% difference in power, a 3dB diff is equal to a 50% power difference, 6 dB = 75%, and so on.

JB, I'm surprised at you - this is where you usually shine!:D

Atennaweb.org said we'd get around three channels, and we now get over 20.

jdemaris:
Antennaweb only tells you what you can get with a paper clip!:lol:
(Personally, I think it's a government conspiracy!:D)

Jim:
Your TVFool Noise Margin is how far above the noise floor your signal is - in the air, at your location.

Theoretically, you need to be above zero dB NM at your tuner...

Your antenna has gain - that's a plus.
Everything else in the system is a loss: the cable run, tuner (or amplifier) noise, splitters, etc.

So if you build in say an extra 5dB of signal at the tuner (by choosing your antenna for its gain, so to shoot for +5dB NM instead of zero) to account for various losses such as SWR of connectors, etc. you should be able to receive the signal. This doesn't take into account multipath (or other) interference, nor does it take into account things unforeseen to TVFool. i.e. trees, local tall buildings, etc. that will effect the signal strength.

So you see if you look at it by the numbers with the TVFool you're dealing with and one TV on a straight run, you could most probably receive a good signal with an antenna rated at 0dB gain! What I'm getting at is there's no need to agonize over a couple of dB difference in the gain of the antenna.

Rather in your sitution let cost, ease of installation, and esthetics's (should it end up outdoors) be the deciding factors.

Just my :2cents:2cents

JB,

We're talking Pittsburgh area with most of the stations under 10 miles. One station is 2-edge and has a modest NM on tvfool.

Ken Nist says the following about the XG-91 (from: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/XG91.html)

"High gain antennas like this one are big, hard to aim, and hard to keep up in bad weather. The author does not normally recommend this antenna inside 25 miles. But there are two exceptions to this:

1. A very high gain antenna might be necessary behind a hill or in a valley.
2. When an obstruction is causing multi-path, a very directional antenna such as this one can reject signal from the wrong directions."

The XG-91 is under consideration due to higher than average probability of multipath (hills in area, very strong signals with a four towers <4 miles away). The tilting ability of the XG-91 may improve ability to acquire the 2-edge signal for ABC.

I'd guess that the 2-edge station you're referring to is WTAE. WTAE is currently constructing a translator that is intended to cover areas of Pittsburgh that are not covered by the main WTAE transmitter. The following was posted by Dave Kasperek (WTAE's chief engineer) on another forum on Sept. 30th:

Work on the WTAE "Squirrel Hill" translator was significantly delayed due to lack of tower crew availability. They are onsite now working (delayed just a bit more by recent wind and rain) but the repeater should be operating in a few more weeks.

After looking at digital only...sorry did not catch that.

I helped with an install a few years ago with a situation similar to yours. There was a hill blocking the towers for ch 8, 32. He started with a cm3016 and received nothing from those stations.

I suggested the hd8200P and he thought I was nuts (he had a ch 4). He finally settled with the hd7084p with the hd269 preamp. The 7084P barely did the job. he was 4-7 miles from all the towers.

Now I am leaning towards the hd7697P or hd7698P mounted outside for your situation. Install the biggest and highest gain antenna to be safe.

Rick0725,

Information about the OP's situation are scattered in three different threads. Here is his tvfool link: http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8ecd80a512e1ec

I read all that...

TV fool is a great tool for us but you can not depend on it 100% in an area with hills.

Let's be honest about this sitaution and I am not going to beat around the bush. There is no way to determine at your computer in another part of the country which antenna would be best...without actually being at the owner's site.

You can not purchase an antenna, unfold it, realize that the thing was inadequate and then return it ...or add preamps trying to get the crappy signal to work. In this situation there are strong signals close by which will create problems.

If i got the call to install...I would bring a truckload of antennas and try some different options. This user does not have that option.

From my desk in upstate New York, without being on his roof, I would suggest the highest gain antenna mounted outside, try to get by without amplification, and not take any risks that I ordered an inadequate antenna.

That is why I suggest the Hd7697P or hd7098P.

I would not want to take the chance with a smaller antenna knowing that I could not return it if it did not perform to my liking.

The other option would be to hire a reputable antenna installer and let them worry about it.

Whoa, Rick... I was not disputing your viewpoint at all, just making sure you had a chance to see the tvfool report. Trying to be neighborly so no offense, okay?! I do agree that no one will know the exact story until an antenna is actually installed. ABC may turn out to be fairly easy to acquire or a difficult challenge.... It clearly is the channel to focus on while testing locations, antenna aim, antenna height, etc JMO. YMMV.

Hmmm, just thinking. I have a follow-up question for Rick0725. I know you're familiar with the xg-91 and the Winegard 769x series antennas. If you use the coordinates on the tvfool report and the tvmap option in tvfool, you will see that Jim8888 is on top of a hill. His actual coordinates likely put him down the slope somewhat, though I don't this for sure...

My question, the tilting feature on the XG-91 series may make it much easier to acquire ABC and the XG-91 has higher gain than the 769x series antennas. Are these two features sufficient to sway the decision toward the XG-91 over a large winegard? I'm not challenging you, just curious based on your experience...

Thanks

Rick

I have to leave in a few minutes I will post much more on this later today so I had one question about the Hd7698 vs. the HD7695.

I was looking at the spec sheet from Winegard and comparing the differences in gain between the two. I'm really interested in the UHF part of it.


This is the difference in gain for the 7698 vs. the 7695.

Channel
13 1db
14 2.5db
32 2.3db
50 1.2db

What I would like to know is would a 1db to a 2.5 difference amount to a lot?

The antenna size would go from 7 feet to 14 to get that extra gain.


Jim

Jim,

Couple things:

A 3 dB increase means you receive 2x more signal and therefore gives you more margin before losing the signal.

Antennas deteriorate over time. Starting with a higher gain antenna means that you likely will have a longer service life.

You will see a few points higher signal strength on your tv tuner with a higher gain antenna. I have calibrated my Apex 502 converter box using pad attenuators. Based on this calibration and under my situation, a 3 dB increase in antenna gain would increase signal strength by 4 percentage units.

IDRick...His actual coordinates likely put him down the slope somewhat, though I don't this for sure

We do not know for sure what his actual situation is. We are depending on TV fool, unproven mfg. antenna gain charts, and other nebulous things. This is not an exact science.


I decided years ago not to use a uhf antenna for vhf reception. The mfg,s antenna gain spec s for the 769 series antennas never made sense to me. Therefore I would go with the antenna with the most elements.

The user basically has one chance to order, install, and then hope the antenna works. he would not be able to return the antenna if it did not work, and the situation is unsure.

I would get the "highest gain" antenna with the most elements that he wants to live with, or hire an installer, have him figure it out on his roof, and move on.

I am finished analysing this one.

The real value of the XG-91 lies not only in it's raw gain, which can be surpassed on low-UHF numbered channels by a few other antennas, but it's ability to be easily tilted above the horizon in 2-edge areas where the user can take advantage of refraction effects from the interfering hills. It isn't a VHF antenna, nor is it the answer to viewers whose UHF stations all lie below real channel 25, but it's a great deep-fringe UHF antenna, and part of a good balanced breakfast when used with a high-quality VHF high-band yagi.

Thanks for all the info!! IDRick JBAntennaman NonMcTubber hoopitup2002 jdemaris aka.hooper tube69 Rick0725 and tigerbangs


I noticed on the hdtvpremier link that IDRick provided that the Winegard 9032 performed a lot lower than Winegard claims that it does.

Rick0725

I'm very tolerant of people's opinions and I LISTEN to what everyone has to say. I see what you are saying about the 7689 and I'm taking a serious look at it. I appreciate your opinion.

tigerbangs....and anyone else who knows about this.

I see a bunch of people combining antennas to get the best results.

On my tv fool info if I look at the stations that show up as the color pink on up about 75%+ of them are on uhf channels of 25 on up. So I am interested in having strength in those high uhf channels.

What I would like to know is lets say I combine a Winegard ya1713 and a xg91.How much if any does combining two antennas like that reduce the of one or both antennas?

I guess a better way of putting it would be if I combined a xg91 and a ya1713 for example would I still have a good amount of an advantage in gain on the high uhf channels instead of just buying a HD7698?


Thanks for all the great replies to this thread!

Jim

On my tv fool info if I look at the stations that show up as the color pink on up about 75%+ of them are on uhf channels of 25 on up. So I am interested in having strength in those high uhf channels.

What I would like to know is lets say I combine a Winegard ya1713 and a xg91.How much if any does combining two antennas like that reduce the of one or both antennas?

I guess a better way of putting it would be if I combined a xg91 and a ya1713 for example would I still have a good amount of an advantage in gain on the high uhf channels instead of just buying a HD7698?


Thanks for all the great replies to this thread!

Jim

Hi Jim,
I was wondering how long it would take you to wander down analog road...

To combine the two antennas you use something called a UVSJ which only passes VHF on one side and UHF on the other, and they meet in the middle. When you combine the two antenna's in this way you're taking the best from both worlds and only losing about 0.5dB which is the insertion loss of the unit.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=UVSJ

combining antennas can offer better performance and I have direct experience with that.

I use the hd8200p, 91xg and 43xg at the home. and have experimented with the ya1713. the hd7698 has similar specs to the hd8200 for vhf hi and uhf.

I currently use the hd8200P for vhf and the 91 xg for uhf combined with the uvsj and separate preamps.

the 91 xg gives me 12% better uhf performance than the hd8200

the hd8200 10-15 % better vhf hi performance than the ya1713.

Enclosed is my TVfool.

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dbefbb17e287a4b

There are stations in the next town over that are edge2 with channels and signal levels close to yours.

ch 30 gave me 82 with the 91xg and 68 with the 8200p. only concern is that the antennas are not at the same height with the 91 xg about 4' above 8200p.

the 91 xg, ya1713 looks like a good option. The 91xg and ya1713 will be less expensive than the Hd 7698. Amplification is going to be an issue if your problem stations are not adequate.

Most of you signals are strong at your home... very strong at less than 5 miles away. My question always has been...how crappy are the signals for ch 38 and ch 13. Do any of your neighbors have antenna systems to get a better feel/understanding of the environment.

enclosed is a pic of my set up at home

Thanks aka.Hooper and Rick0725

Guess what? I just bought my first antenna a 91xg....I'm waiting for it to be shipped in. I'm excited to set it up and try it out. It's my first antenna.

aka.hooper

Thanks for the link I might need one of those!

Rick0725

Your antenna setup is impressive!

Almost no one around here uses an antenna. Everyone has cable or a dish.

I realize that I just have to jump in and try things out. I might need a different antenna or to add antennas to this setup. But even if I have to buy a couple of antennas to find out what is right for my location it still won't be a huge amount of money to do that.

Does the 43xg have a larger bandwidth than the 91xg?

I'm thinking of just trying the 43xg at first since I'm new to this and I thought maybe it's wouldn't need to be aimed as precisely since it's shorter. That might be easier for me to learn more about an antenna that way.


Jim

91 xg...be prepared for this.

91 xg...be prepared for this.
its not as easy as it looks either....but its worth it

I will put it this way with my xg91 getting baltimore stations that are 50 miles away without a ANY probs!! Much better than the bay antenna we tried at first!! Get another person to help you put that XG 91 togather!!

I will put it this way with my xg91 getting baltimore stations that are 50 miles away without a ANY probs!! Much better than the bay antenna we tried at first!! Get another person to help you put that XG 91 togather!!

I'm wondering if anyone has ever compared the XG91 to the Winegard 9032 and the DB8 antennas. I don't mean comparing specs on paper. I'm talking about side by side, or mounted on the same mount pointing in the same direction.

I've got a Winegard 9032 that's getting stations up to 140 miles away at my house in northern Michigan (no big hills). I also had an XG91 there and I didn't note any difference in performance.

Here in New York, where I am surrounded by high hills and trees, I'm still experimenting. I have a Winegard 9032 that is pulling in stations 75 miles away, but some are "iffy." Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. None are "line of sight", i.e. none are coming from the exact direction of the transmitter towers and some come from totally different directions. I haven't tried the XG91 here, but based on my Michigan experience, I doubt it will work any better. In a few days, I'll be installing a DB8 alongside the 9032. I'm curious to see what happens.

I did just conduct one failed experiment. After reading about the potential gain of stacking two identical antennas, I installed dual Winegard 9032s. One 3 feet above the other and both pointing the same direction. I lost half my signal strength instead of getting a gain. I don't know what happened. But, I was thirty feet up in the air, on a long ladder partially braced against my loader-backhoe bucket. The wind was almost blowing me off and it was cold and raining. So, I did not do a lot of diagnostics. I was using a Winegard antenna joiner CC-7870, so I don't know if that was causing the loss, or I had an antenna phasing issue. Due to the weather, I was in a hurry to take the one antenna down and get my kids favorite TV station back. It's QUBO on WYPX, on virtual channel 55 and RF channel 50 UHF. Right now, with the single 9032 and Winegard AP-8275 amp, some times we get it, and sometimes we don't. Also tried the Channel Master 7777 and it gave a slightly weaker signal. The 9032 has to be pointed at exactly 210 magnetic degrees to have any chance of reception. TV Fool says the transmitter is at 59 magnetic degrees which is in a far different direction. If I point at 59 degrees I never get any hint of a signal.

It's QUBO on WYPX, on virtual channel 55 and RF channel 50 UHF. Right now, with the single 9032 and Winegard AP-8275 amp, some times we get it, and sometimes we don't. Also tried the Channel Master 7777 and it gave a slightly weaker signal. The 9032 has to be pointed at exactly 210 magnetic degrees to have any chance of reception. TV Fool says the transmitter is at 59 magnetic degrees which is in a far different direction. If I point at 59 degrees I never get any hint of a signal.


I just realized that the TV Fool image I uploaded is too small to view (at least with my Web-browser). So, here's a better one, I hope.

I just wanted to say THANK YOU to all the people on here for helping me out!

I got my 91xg in and installed it in my attic and it works fine.

Also I'm one of the lucky ones that is able to receive vhf channels with it. I got a channel 13 and a channel 11 in really strong with mine.

I knew next to nothing about tv antennas a few months ago and through reading and reading and the people on here helping me out now I got a nice working setup!

Also the picture quality is better with my antenna than I get with my local cable company!

Thanks again everyone!

Jim

That's excellent Jim!
Glad you let us know too!
And also glad it worked out for you the easy way!;)

Yes, OTA HD isn't compressed like cable,
ENJOY!

Congratulations Jim! Great job! Your perseverance paid off in spades! Thanks for reporting your results back to the forum, very helpful. Quick question though, did you need to use the tilt feature on the XG-91 to acquire ABC?

Best,

Rick

Thanks aka.Hooper and IDRick

I never tried the xg91 without tilting it. I just set it up on a tilt right from the start.

The way my attic is on a tilt it points up further on the roof so I just went with that right from the start.

I notice that a lot of posters say how strong their signal is by using a percent.

My tv does not give a percent for signal strength it just gives a bar across the screen to show the strength.

My other channels that come in really strong look to be about 95% to 98% on the signal strength bar.

Abc comes in fine but the strength is lower it looks to be about about 75% to 80% as a guess. I had to keep moving the antenna side to side to get the strongest signal for Abc.

Abc was the station that I focused on to aim my antenna.

I would say the picture is a little better...just a LITTLE on the channels that come in 98% but Abc still comes in looking great.

Supposedly ABC might be putting in another transmitter???? If they do my signal might be near 100% on that one also.


Thanks again for all your help guys!!!

Jim

Thanks for the follow-up Jim! Those are very signal strength readings!

Best,

Rick

Congrats Jim
xg91 :thumbsup:

After watching NBC for 20 years on a mostly blurry VHF signal, I now watch NBC just like It was on Satelite (but for free!) with my xg91. I have saved so much money by not folding under (like most people) and buying into the Satelite companies monthly fees, I just might try Tigerbands set-up just for fun next year.

Mike

Congrats Jim
xg91 :thumbsup:

After watching NBC for 20 years on a mostly blurry VHF signal, I now watch NBC just like It was on Satelite (but for free!) with my xg91.

I assume there are many people in fringe reception areas that think no over-the-air signals are available. I've met many that are convinced things got worse, not better, after the digital change.

I've been in this area of New York state for 30 years. At first, we had no cable available, and a few people in town (in the valley) could get one VHF channel with a huge antenna and preamp. Others, like where I was living, could get nothing. I finally built my own wooden 14' satellite dish. At that time, satellite TV was not scrambled. Around the same time, a friend of mine built his own "cable company." He constructed a couple of antenna farms on mountain-tops along with a few repeaters, and sold service to people that lived in town - only.

Then came Prime Star. I was told they were working on a mandate and had to give access to certain rural people. With their new-technology they used small dishes that pointed at only one satellite, unlike my monster that tracked over a dozen and used negative and positive LNA polarity to switch channels. We got the Prime Star on a rental agreement, so they had to pay for all repairs, forever. On my own huge dish setup, I had many electronic failures that I had to pay for. Thus the change to Prime Star was welcome. Years later, Prime Star got incorporated into New Channels, and later again, it became Direct TV.

I went though a period of time of maybe 15 - 20 years with no attempts of getting over-the-air TV. I had no reason to think anything improved.

Then, this June, I heard even more squawking, and those few people who had been getting one channel, claimed they now got nothing.

Then, one day, I was fooling around with my 4WD mini-motorhome. I was installing a TV antenna on it along with a 20' retracting mast. It's main purpose was to receive TV in Canada and Michigan, not here in New York. I used one of those cheap little LAVA antennas with built-in preamp. They look like jokes, but for $35, it was cheaper then a true RV antenna.

To my surprise, I got many channels with it, in an area that used to have no reception. That with an antenna maybe a foot and a half wide, and two feet long.

After that big surprise, I drove down to my local Radio Shack. Remember, they say, if "you've got questions, they've got answers", correct? The guy that runs the store told me they no longer sell any over-the-air TV stuff. He stated that since the digital change, all reception in our area is gone.

Obviously, I knew that could not be true, due to my RV antenna experience. I did some research and went to Antennnaweb.org. They claim I have the possibility of getting only one channel, which I did not believe. Then went to TV Fool and they gave a better, but still incorrect picture. TV Fool though, at least made it look like it was possible to get 4 or 5 channels.

Then, I experimented all summer. Here on my mountainside property, and in the Adirondacks, and in two places with no mountains in Michigan. All rural, extreme fringe areas. Flatland Michigan was predictable. The mountains of New York are not.

Here at home, I tried several setups using the XG91, 9032, 8200, DB8, and a huge 18' long Radio Shack antenna I bought in 1979 (that never worked for me). It had been laying in my farm dump for many years.

For my fringe UHF reception, the DB8 has beat them all. Not by much, but just enough to make a difference. That because our most problematic channel is RF 50, and it does better on 50 then the XG91 or 9032. I presently have a CM 7777 amp on it. I know from testing that it does NOT give me the best signal as compared to some other preamps, but for now, I use it since it has the dual inputs for the VHF and UHF. Net and raw gain reports I'd read tell a different story.
It is 550 feet from my house and I have only one coax cable buried in conduit. Big mistake, I should of buried multiple cables to allow separate amps and antennas.

Antenna Web stated I'd get one channel - WRGB on RF 6.

TV Fool shows - WRGB on RF6 with a positive NM of 5.9
WXXA on RF7 with a negative NM of 3.5
WNYT on RF RF12 with a negative NM of 6.1
WTEN on RF26 with a negative NM of 10.2
WCWN on RF43 with a negative NM of 13
WKTV on RF29 with a negative NM of 13.2
WMHT on RF34 with a negative NM of 13.8
WICZ on RF8 with a negative NM of 13.8
WBNG on RF7 with a negative NM of 14.3
WSKG on RF42 with a negative NM of 24.3
WYPX on RF50 with a negative NM of 24.5

This is what I got with my mini-motorhome using a 20' pole, tiny Lava antenna with preamp, and a Sansui digital TV. Listed from strongest to weakest:

WBNG on RF 7- steady picture and very strong signal strength. TV Fool shows it as the 10th weakest channel, It is by far, one of the strongest.

WSKG on RF 42 - steady picture and very strong signal strength. TV Fool shows it as the 10th weakest. It's also one of our strongest.

WICZ and WBPN on RF 8 - steady picture but low signal strength. TV Fool shows it as the 8th weakest channel.

WKTV on RF 29 - steady picture but low signal strength. TV Fool shows it as the 6th weakest channel.

WYPX on RF 50 - pixelating picture and widely fluctuating signal. Coming from 210 compass degrees although transmitter is at 59 degrees. TV Fool shows it at the 12 th weakest.


Now - what about the channels, in order of strength from TV Fool?

WRGB on RF 6 is listed as the strongest, and I could not get it. I did sense it once or twice with a very low signal. I later was able to get it by putting up a huge antenna.

WXXA on RF 7 ? We don't get it, but . . . Two channels are both listed on RF 7. One is WXXA, on virtual 23.1 with FOX programming at 101 compass degrees. And, so is WBNG with PBS on RF 7 and virtual 12.1 at 252 compass degrees. We get WBNG very strong.

WNYT on RF 12? Did not get it with the motorhome setup. I do get it now, with a much larger antenna.

After finding out that neither TV Fool or Antenna Web was giving me reliable info for my specific area, I did a lot of testing. Mostly with a hand-held 20 foot pole and full size antennas, along with my 4WD motorhome. It has built-in AC power, a digital TV, etc. It enables me to drive all over my property to run tests.

I now have two antenna sites. One approx. 220 feet from house with a Winegard 8200 and rotator, along with a Winegard AP-8275 amp. The other antenna site is 550' from the house and has a DB8 UHF antenna and a huge, 18' long Radio Shack VHF antenna that I bought 30 years ago. DB8 is on a rotator, the VHF antenna is not. Both hooked to a CM 7777 amp. Also have a 20 dB line-amp at the 250 foot mark (half way). Next, maybe next spring, I am going to install four UHF antennas stack and all joined together. I'm waiting to get some of the parts from England. I will be using four Winegard 9032s.

For now, this is what we get consistently. Close to 30 channels when including sub-channels.

Signal strength in "bars" on a meter that goes from 0 to 16 bars.
Height makes no difference here, but both are at 25 feet.
I've checked signal strengh directly at the antenna sites and at home. No significant loss with line-runs.

Antenna locations:
Winegard 8200:
Lat: 42.60218611111111 Long:74.71304166666667

DB8 and huge Radio Shack VHF (18 ' long):
Lat: 42.60216111111111 Long: 74.7123



WSKG virtual 46 and RF 42 signal of 10 bars.

WBNG virtual 12 on RF 7. Signal of 10 bars.

WTEN virtual 10 and RF 26. Signal of 10 bars

WKTV virtual 2 on RF 29 Signal of 9 bars

WIVT virtual 34 on RF 34 (works but haven't checked strength)

WICZ and WBPN virtual 40 on RF 8 signal of 8 bars

42-001 and 42-002 - both audio only

WMHT virtual 17 and RF 34. Signal of 6 bars.

WRGB virtual 6 on RF 6 signal of 4 bars

WYPX virtual 55 on RF 50. Signal of 3 bars.

WCWN virtual 45 an RF 43. Signal of 1 bar.

WNYT virtual 13 and RF 12. Signal of 1 bar;