Need Advice for a 70 Mile Setup Installed Today

Just got a call from someone who's 20+ year old antenna setup finally bit the dust. They want my help in getting it put together but they also want it up today.

So I'd love advice on my choices.

There situation:
They need to rec'v. all digital real channels 12 - 51
70 miles from source, all in same direction, flat terrain.
Antenna is 25' off ground.
They fight with high winds and lightning on a regular basis.

My antenna options:
Channel Master 3671
Channel Master 4228
Winegard 8200U
Winegard 7084P


Preamp: I have a Channel Master 0068DSB .

My first choice initally was the 4228 but I wasn't sure if it would launch in high winds or if it could pull in that channel 12.

My next was the 3671 but I'm within their price range to go with one of the Winegards.

As you can see I'm going off of local inventories.

Thanks,

Bob

Sorry Bob, but unless you can provide a actual street level address, there is no way for us to look at their situation and give you advice.

70 miles for most applications is just too far for reliable reception on a daily basis.

So maybe it isn't that their old antenna system crapped out, it is that the signal crapped out.

Even the TV Cable companies have a real hard time trying to get reliable reception from stations 50 miles away in some circumstances.

Wanting all the channels out of one antenna for something 70 miles away and from god knows how many different directions, would be like me trying to tell you where to look to find a 4 leaf clover.

Florida, Vermont, California, anywhere - where you live near a large body of water - where the signal can travel unobstructed between the two points and has something to reflect off - will change the normal line of sight range.

While other places where you have high mountains and deep valleys, might see little or no reception at all - even from as little as 10 miles away.

Get us a physical address and then come back on and explain their situation again.

As JB says, without knowing your exact situation (and seeing an exact address tvfool) there is no way to make an informed suggestion.

As you said, the 4228 prob won't land the VHF, and the 8200 is too big & flimsy for the wind...

7084 or 3671, maybe.

But going on only the fact that you're 70 miles out, I would think the tigerbangs fringe prescription would be the best bet you have at success: That is a YA-1713 for VHF & 91XG for UHF. The separates will probably out perform a combo. But I guess there's no chance of those being locally avail? (Maybe substitute a 9032 for the 91XG???)

And without knowing if you have ANY local transmissions there's no way at all to recommend an amp.

They're in the country. So the closest street address I can give is their zip: 60420, Dwight.

Here's the tv fool link:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dbc270f2cc6e1a3

All they care about are the chicago stations.

I'd done a two antenna setup in this town earlier this year with a 91xg and a VHF only antenna (don't remember which) going to a cm-7777. Its worked well, though not 100% (which they knew going in that'd be the case).

Now ABC has moved to UHF, leaving CBS as the VHF holdout.

As I said, I've got the amp already and the choices I listed are what's available today.

Thanks again,

Bob

My other reaction is that if they demand TODAY, they are all too likely to repent at their leisure. And after buying something expensive they can't take back, they will have to replace it with something else that is expensive.

The other question is why has the existing set up suddenly crapped out
as you implied? And for that matter what is their existing set up?

But if they has somewhat good results say a few weeks prior and drastically less now, one would have to guess, given the 70 miles distance that they had a fairly big antenna, a coax run of some length, and some sort of signal amplification. And going by the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, we might then say its improbable that all three links failed at once. And therefore we might want to look at possible causes of sudden failure. (1) Antenna internal wiring corrosion finally achieved critical mass. (2) Coax corrosion finally achieved critical mass. (3) Something inside the amp burned out meaning it passes no signal at all.

Even given, at 20 years of age, none of these three links should be trusted, and therefore all three should be replaced, I would still recommend replacing the coax run and the amp, all of them doable today. Then you can await a TVFool report, to later select a
optimal antenna(s) and hopefully get them back some TV reception today.

Thr very first thing I will say is that if it has more then a -70, you probably are not going to receive it through the trees.

TV Fool can paint you a picture as pretty as you want, when you put something between you and the transmitter that is higher then your receive antenna, your chances of getting it is iffy at best.

As we also know, the Chicago market has it's flaws. At one time Channel Master had a antenna that was specifically designed for the Chicago market, but when it did not work, they discontinued the model.

As I said before, there are no guarantee's in reception.

Channel 4 and channel 6 will require a Winegard 8200U antenna to receive. None of the other Winegard models will dig deep enough to receive them. You are also going to need a antenna rotor and be willing to turn them to receive the other ones because your market looks more like a shotgun pattern then it does a market report.

You would be better served to put the 7777 back in the box and use a Channel Master CM 0068DSB or a Winegard AP 8780 Chromstar.

I do not think that you need as much help with the VHF signals as you would with the UHF signals due to the fact that a amplifier does not physically amplify the signal, it only compensates for line loss..

Unless you use a special VHF antenna and a XG 91 - you will not get much reception from the VHF with a regular combo antenna - because most are not designed to dig down deeper then channel 7 - such as the YA 1713.

I'd say that it isn't going to matter anyways - because they are not a network station anyways.

WOCK - The station broadcasts with an extremely directional antenna, which points north and southwest, and this leaves out the highly populated northwest side of Chicago as well as the northwest suburbs.

WOCK-CA received a construction permit to build a low-power digital television station on channel 4, radiating primarily to the southwest.

WOCK was running CaribeVision programming on SD virtual channel 13.1, and Korean language programming on SD virtual channel 13.2.

WLFM-LP is a local, low-power television station serving the Chicago area, licensed to Rochelle, Illinois. It was previously affiliated with MTV Tr3s before being used to transmit a smooth jazz radio format, taking advantage of the fact the 87.7 audio frequency for Channel 6 can be used to transmit audio on many FM radios.

They both come off the John Hancock building.

My guess is the amp gave up, but the husband said if he's getting up there to change the amp, he's doing it all in one shot. That's the urgency.

Given that the old antenna was big, falling apart, they had a $5 clearance Philips pre-amp, and still had pretty good reception, I'd say most any of these will give them back what they had. I'd just like to get the best for the job.

Oh, and all coax will be replaced in this job.

JB Antennaman, thanks for the thorough reply.

As I said, I'm only interested in actual channels 12-51. Anything lower on the VHF side, or higher on UHF are channels they don't watch. Also, we won't be looking for FM at all.

Thanks for all the responses thus far.

After looking at the generic address TVFool bobcrane posted while I was composing the previous post, my other comment becomes a doubt that an XG-91 would be the best UHF choice. Because the weakest Chicago stations are under real channel numbers 30 and an XG-91 only starts to shine on channel numbers above 30.

Bobcrane,

A good source for evaluating different antennas can be found here: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

The DB-8 antenna has higher gain than the XG-91 up through about ch 35. The XG-91 is clearly superior on channels above 35. In your case, the higher number real channels also tend to have lower noise margins (NM) on tvfool. Based on this consideration, I would recommend the XG-91 over the DB-8.

I agree with Rick - to a point.

The point is - no matter who you are and how hard you try to help out people it never fails that after you help them - they will be calling you back time and time again to replace and resolve issues until you get them everything available on their report.

My first claim stands due to the fact that the CM 7777 has too much amplification on the VHF side for what they need. Again, the pre amp does not physically amplify the signal, all it does is compensate for line loss, and line loss on channel 4 might be four times less then what it is on channel 51.

So overload is worse then not having enough boost in that situation.

Since we know that Chicago is a mecca for FM transmissions, the FM trap needs to be turned on- or there would be more problems then what the pre amp solves. Even then, without having a physical address, there is no way of knowing how close the customer is to the nearest radio station, police station, ambulance, hospital cell tower etc.

I don't recall seeing any co channel interference listed on his report, but since the report only shows television stations and not radio stations, there is no way for us to know for sure what is in the area to block the signal.

I take it the John Hancock building is taller then the other building around it and helps the signal to shine in two or more directions.
That's the problem with living in a city and not having anywhere to put your television transmitters.

I'm sure that there is lot's of buildings 3 or more stories between the customer and the transmitter than can and will block their digital signals.

So like I said before, it is hit or miss.

Putting up too small of a antenna will only cause more problems then it will solve.

One problem is - as soon as one station comes in, another station will come and go, so you do a little more work to try to get the other station and then another station will appear - but not always be receivable. So you do a little more work to try to get that station and another one try's to come in. Like NonMctubber said, by the time you are done, you will go through several antenna's trying to find the best one for their application and will throw good money after bad. The best solution is to buy the best antenna the first time and not worry about how large it is - because after it is up for a couple of weeks, the homeowner will not even notice it up on the roof.

The culture shock goes away as soon as they can watch the Price is Right or Wheel of Fortune. Peer pressure - where the neighbors look down on people who has a television antenna, like as if they are too poor to pay for cable will go away as soon as they break even on the cable bill vs. the price of the antenna install.

Even if it is 2 years, anytime after those 2 years is all profit.

Bobcrane,

A good source for evaluating different antennas can be found here: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

The DB-8 antenna has higher gain than the XG-91 up through about ch 35. The XG-91 is clearly superior on channels above 35. In your case, the higher number real channels also tend to have lower noise margins (NM) on tvfool. Based on this consideration, I would recommend the XG-91 over the DB-8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest the IDRick reasoning is flawed. The point being, on the stronger set of UHF Chicago channels both the DB-8 and the Xg-91 will bring home the bacon equally well. So we have to look at the weaker set of channels to make the determination, and select the UHF antenna that does best on the weaker set of channels. I am not saying the DB-8 is best, but I am saying its certainly not the Xg-91 in this situation. When we are dealing with real channels 17 and 21, its not the forte of a Xg-91.

Of course even then, we have to ask the end consumer, I would want those weak PBS stations, but if all they want is the price is right, they may not share my tastes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest the IDRick reasoning is flawed. The point being, on the stronger set of UHF Chicago channels both the DB-8 and the Xg-91 will bring home the bacon equally well. So we have to look at the weaker set of channels to make the determination, and select the UHF antenna that does best on the weaker set of channels. I am not saying the DB-8 is best, but I am saying its certainly not the Xg-91 in this situation. When we are dealing with real channels 17 and 21, its not the forte of a Xg-91.

It does depend on which channels the OP wants. The spread between the two antennas is larger for the high channel numbers than for the lower channel numbers. The XG-91 does have a gain of 10 dBd or higher for channels in the 14 to 35 range. It's *not* a poor antenna for the low range (only the DB-8 beats it in the ch 14 to 35 range).

OK, guys: here it is: the definitive answer for these folks: an Antennas Direct XG-91 and a Winegard YA-1713 mounted high on the same mast separated by at least 4'. Aim at 40 degrees, combine the two antenna using a Channel Master Titan 7777 preamplifier switched into the 'separate' input position, and voila: all the Chicago reception that they can want. Now, the rest of you: stop the mental masterbation and go to bed!

OK, guys: here it is: the definitive answer for these folks: an Antennas Direct XG-91 and a Winegard YA-1713 mounted high on the same mast separated by at least 4'. Aim at 40 degrees, combine the two antenna using a Channel Master Titan 7777 preamplifier switched into the 'separate' input position, and voila: all the Chicago reception that they can want. Now, the rest of you: stop the mental masterbation and go to bed!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me Tigerbangs, but your position lacks logic on the UHF part of the equation. Maybe you are correct the a Xg-91 will bring in all the Chicago stations, But still, in all likely hood those real channel stations at 17 and 21 will be marginal and subject to drop outs. And its still ignores the fact that maybe those weaker Chicago UHF stations will not be delivered by a XG-91 that has inferior gain compared to other UHF antennas on low UHF and maybe not. The point being the stronger UHF Chicago stations will be gettable by either the DB8 or the XG-91, and how can you call your self a deep fringe expert when you ignore situational deep fringe issues in individual TVfool reports?

And in so doing you sound like someone who arrogantly thinks one size shoe fits all no matter what.

So please explain your logic.

You know what, Norm, my 36 years of experience trumps your need to know: go back to your corner, and zip up your fly!

...I take it the John Hancock building is taller then the other building around it and helps the signal to shine in two or more directions.
That's the problem with living in a city and not having anywhere to put your television transmitters.

Um, yea - if I'm not mistaken the John Hancock Bldg is the Sears Tower.:D

And Pardon me for asking Tiger, but what's with the harsh words???
It seems NMT asks a legitimate question?

Trump is putting the finishing touches on a new office building that is nearly as tall as the former Sears Tower. Henceforth, it is now known as the Willis Tower now that it is under new ownership. Personally, I would have named it Cyril in order to have it retain its distinct identity.

The Hancock Bldg. only has one other tower nearby that is close to its height. All the other high rises a few hundred feet shorter and likely will not pose a problem to the antennas on the building.

Um, yea - if I'm not mistaken the John Hancock Bldg is the Sears Tower.:D

And Pardon me for asking Tiger, but what's with the harsh words???
It seems NMT asks a legitimate question?

Egos are coming into play here. I see this a lot in the radio industry especially with some of the technical aspects associated with certain forms of radio broadcasting. One Engineer will make a claim that he believes is gospel and operates within the laws of physics and when someone challenges him he will get defensive and attack. And vice versa of course with other people involved.

While the laws of physics are set in stone, that does not mean that man's interpretation of these laws through potentially flawed mathematical equations or calculations will yield accurate results. Too many environmental factors come into play that can affect a radio or TV signal once it leaves the transmitter right up until the time it hits the home radio or TV antenna. I think this is why one particular model antenna will yield a certain set of results for one person, while another one using the same antenna even just next door can see different results.

:offtopic

Egos are coming into play here.

Don't stifle it now, Billiam. These guys bailed on answering my question by about the fourth post. I'm curious to see how far ego's and one uspmanship will take this. :yippee:

My favorite's are those that are telling me no way will a single antenna solution work. Completely ignoring the single antenna solution these folks have had for years and consistently recv'd all but 1 or 2 channels.
:D

:offtopic



Don't stifle it now, Billiam. These guys bailed on answering my question by about the fourth post. I'm curious to see how far ego's and one uspmanship will take this. :yippee:

My favorite's are those that are telling me no way will a single antenna solution work. Completely ignoring the single antenna solution these folks have had for years and consistently recv'd all but 1 or 2 channels.
:D

Interesting, I reread the thread and I don't see where you told us which antenna is currently being used... Which one? The TigerBangs prescription has worked well for many in the fringe areas. Should work in your application as well. The only reason to keep a full range antenna is if you desire ch 4, WOCK. If so, then yeah, go for it! :)

It's true, I didn't mention the exact antenna. Truthfully it's because I have no clue. Big, ugly, falling apart.

I did throw out that they had an antenna and that it had worked until recently. I guess I should have said a single, combo antenna. I assumed saying antenna singular implied that.

What I'm laughing about was in my first post I'd said I was going to get an antenna that day and listed all options available to me. Here we are two days later discussing whether or not the XG-91 would or wouldn't work. It reminds me of a comedy I saw where a girl asked her 4 engineer neighbors to help her assemble a shelf from IKEA. They went off on some tangent and while they were arguing what to do, she built the shelf. LoL.

Either way that's fine with me as I've already installed the ChannelMaster I mentioned, they are getting all the channels they were getting plus something from the south and are very happy with the results.

By all means, carry on.

I agree, it doesn't make sense to post to a forum when one needs immediate answers. Sounds like you made a good choice! :) There was quibbling because gain on combo antennas tends to be lower than with separate UHF and VHF antennas. And with fringe reception, one usually needs all the signal one can get....

Glad to hear your choice works well for you! :)

Very diplomatic there Rick!:D

Glad the 3671 pulled 'em home Bob.
Just out of curiosity, how low did it go?

Very diplomatic there Rick!:D

Glad the 3671 pulled 'em home Bob.
Just out of curiosity, how low did it go?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I too am glad that the choice, one or the other pulled them in, but at the end of the day, on the UHF side, science methods would be to try both the DB-8 and Xg-91. And then over time we would have an apples to apples comparison, on which got the most UHF channels over time.

Obviously not practical from the OP perspective, but at the end of the day, you pay your money and make a choice. And then live with the results. And once the decision is made, there is no easy way going back.

Very diplomatic there Rick!:D

Glad the 3671 pulled 'em home Bob.
Just out of curiosity, how low did it go?

It's pulling in Channel 10 (35.1) from 30 miles away and at an odd angle.

Then it's pulling in 12 (2.1, CBS) pretty good at night, a few drops in the day. Nobody is ever too concerned with CBS if you grew up in Chicago's burbs because it was never "always on" growing up. About 70% is the best it's gotten on the signal strength meter of a channel Master 7000 convertor box.

Channel 44 (7.1, recently moved to 44) was flaky this AM, but my buddy in Aurora was having the exact same problem at the exact same time so it may be something with their transition.

4 and 6 don't even come up. I'd never heard of either one. Just on tvfool.

... the former Sears Tower. Henceforth, it is now known as the Willis Tower now that it is under new ownership.

And so I stand corrected - I knew they changer the name, but guess I had a brain fart!:o

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me Tigerbangs, but your position lacks logic on the UHF part of the equation. Maybe you are correct the a Xg-91 will bring in all the Chicago stations, But still, in all likely hood those real channel stations at 17 and 21 will be marginal and subject to drop outs. And its still ignores the fact that maybe those weaker Chicago UHF stations will not be delivered by a XG-91 that has inferior gain compared to other UHF antennas on low UHF and maybe not. The point being the stronger UHF Chicago stations will be gettable by either the DB8 or the XG-91, and how can you call your self a deep fringe expert when you ignore situational deep fringe issues in individual TVfool reports?

And in so doing you sound like someone who arrogantly thinks one size shoe fits all no matter what.

So please explain your logic.
One thing this site doesn't lack, it's entertainment value.
I do wish everyone would quit telling people that 70+ mile reliable digital reception was unrealistic. I understand that for some this may be harder to acheive than others, but for me, it is was an obtainable goal, 72 miles to Portland, all channels UHF and VHF 100%, all the time, so good I bought a DTVpal DVR to record. Now for Seattle at 80+ miles, I only get some of the station 100%, a few of them drop out occasionaly, so I undertand I am at the limit.
As for the anenna of choice, I have tried most all of the recommended;
3671, 4228HD, 91XG, stacked 91XG's.
I think Tiger is right on with his initial recomendation, based on the information provided. If the 91XG isn't enough, they are only out $70.00 bucks, and if they are serious about success, the could then try a Antennagraft super G-1483, as It is an improvement on any of the antennas listed above.
To anyone who disputes this, I would first ask if they had tested and had a collection of all these antennas, as I do.
I'm so happy with the super G1483, I think I will likley buy another just in case a severe winter storm ever takes it down.
As far as VHF goes, my antennacraft Y-10 7-13 reliably pulls in all the portland VHF, again 100 % of the time, I was having some issues with it for one channel, but it turned out to be an interference issue with a particular set.
So please understand that 70+ mile reception is an obtainable goal. And guys, thanks again for the entertainment.

One thing this site doesn't lack, it's entertainment value.
I do wish everyone would quit telling people that 70+ mile reliable digital reception was unrealistic. I understand that for some this may be harder to acheive than others, but for me, it is was an obtainable goal, 72 miles to Portland, all channels UHF and VHF 100%, all the time, so good I bought a DTVpal DVR to record. Now for Seattle at 80+ miles, I only get some of the station 100%, a few of them drop out occasionaly, so I undertand I am at the limit.
As for the anenna of choice, I have tried most all of the recommended;
3671, 4228HD, 91XG, stacked 91XG's.
I think Tiger is right on with his initial recomendation, based on the information provided. If the 91XG isn't enough, they are only out $70.00 bucks, and if they are serious about success, the could then try a Antennagraft super G-1483, as It is an improvement on any of the antennas listed above.
To anyone who disputes this, I would first ask if they had tested and had a collection of all these antennas, as I do.
I'm so happy with the super G1483, I think I will likley buy another just in case a severe winter storm ever takes it down.
As far as VHF goes, my antennacraft Y-10 7-13 reliably pulls in all the portland VHF, again 100 % of the time, I was having some issues with it for one channel, but it turned out to be an interference issue with a particular set.
So please understand that 70+ mile reception is an obtainable goal. And guys, thanks again for the entertainment.

TV fool and photo of my set-up attached.

Just curious, what do you say if they have stations 70 miles away and NM below -15 dB? You are fortunate to have distant stations with a positive NM.

Just curious, what do you say if they have stations 70 miles away and NM below -15 dB? You are fortunate to have distant stations with a positive NM.
I would say that the level of success will be directly related to the amount of determination. I do not dispute the good advice of all the fine people on this site that spend their personal time trying to help others, for no other reason but to help other people.
As info my 100% "0" dropout success rate, it stops after -9.8DB, channel 48 (5.1) Seattle, 80 miles. Beyond that it varies between intermitent droupouts and frequent dropouts, or nothing at times. Anything less than 99% and I'm not interested in watching.
As far as what I would tell people @-15.8, if your serious, you may need a tower, there are no gaurantees, and any money spent on OTA equipment is money well spent, out of the hands of cable and satellite companies.
If I had to put up a tower or purchase a Wade parabolic, I would, anything to keep my money away from the cable and sattelite companies. I have been OTA only for 19 years, and hopefully allways will be.
Keep up the good work.

Since Stew reports such good results with his AntennaCraft G-1483, I would like to get my hands on one. My area has so many strong TV signals in t now that fringe reception is made doubly difficult because of overload conditions. If anyone is really in the boonies in New England, and wants to try the AntennaCraft solution, please contact me: I'd be very interested knowing more about your installation and results. Stew may really be on to something here.

Stew has done awesome work and I appreciate the sharing of his success stories. Hat tip to Stewboat! :)