Need Advice for a 70 Mile Setup Installed Today

bobcrane · 11-07-2009, 10:48 AM

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

JB Antennaman · 11-07-2009, 11:12 AM

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.

aka.Hooper · 11-07-2009, 01:18 PM

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.

bobcrane · 11-07-2009, 02:03 PM

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_wr...bc270f2cc6e1a3

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

NonMcTubber · 11-07-2009, 02:17 PM

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.

JB Antennaman · 11-07-2009, 02:25 PM

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.

bobcrane · 11-07-2009, 02:27 PM

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.

bobcrane · 11-07-2009, 02:31 PM

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

bobcrane · 11-07-2009, 02:35 PM

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.

NonMcTubber · 11-07-2009, 02:38 PM

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.

IDRick · 11-07-2009, 03:50 PM

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.

JB Antennaman · 11-07-2009, 06:43 PM

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.

NonMcTubber · 11-07-2009, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDRick

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.

IDRick · 11-07-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NonMcTubber

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).

tigerbangs · 11-07-2009, 08:25 PM

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!

11-07-2009, 10:48 AM	#1
bobcrane How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 26	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

11-07-2009, 11:12 AM	#2
JB Antennaman High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Jefferson County - Pennsylvania, high atop a hill Posts: 776	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. __________________ There is no exception for good reception!

11-07-2009, 01:18 PM	#3
aka.Hooper "Babe" 2002-2009 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Eastern Suffolk, LI, NY Posts: 562	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. __________________ Some details on my DIY antenna builds: http://mysite.verizon.net/res11d41p/ Some tips for newbies posting to the forum for the first time: http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hd...ng-advice.html

11-07-2009, 02:17 PM	#5
NonMcTubber High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 927	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. __________________ High definition is not the definition of my life. But knowledge is power and HD does have some potential to increase content variety and choices.

11-07-2009, 02:25 PM	#6
JB Antennaman High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Jefferson County - Pennsylvania, high atop a hill Posts: 776	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. __________________ There is no exception for good reception!

11-07-2009, 02:03 PM	#4
bobcrane How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 26	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_wr...bc270f2cc6e1a3 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

11-07-2009, 02:27 PM	#7
bobcrane How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 26	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.

11-07-2009, 02:31 PM	#8
bobcrane How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 26	Oh, and all coax will be replaced in this job.

11-07-2009, 02:35 PM	#9
bobcrane How can anyone watch standard def? Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 26	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.

11-07-2009, 02:38 PM	#10
NonMcTubber High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 927	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. __________________ High definition is not the definition of my life. But knowledge is power and HD does have some potential to increase content variety and choices.

11-07-2009, 03:50 PM	#11
IDRick High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Eastern Idaho Posts: 1,482	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.

11-07-2009, 06:43 PM	#12
JB Antennaman High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Jefferson County - Pennsylvania, high atop a hill Posts: 776	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. __________________ There is no exception for good reception!

11-07-2009, 08:25 PM	#15
tigerbangs Antenna Maven Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Springfield, MA Age: 55 Posts: 2,148	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! __________________ Real men don't use indoor antennas; neither do real women!