What's this Lacrosse antenna all about ?

[jhillestad]

Whats the deal with this expensive Lacrosse antenna ?


http://www.solidsignal.com/prod_display.asp?main_cat=03&CAT=&PROD=AD-LACROSSE-A

Solid Signal carries it for $180...

Is there a review anywhere ?

Or is this one of those terk style rip off antenna's ?

Anyone use this thing yet ????

[WallyB]

I wondered the same thing. I got an email from them this morning about that antenna. I currently use an AntennasDirect DB-4 in my attic and I'm very pleased with it. I'd rank them above Terk on quality & customer service, IMO.

[JimSpence]

One thing to think about is that it is a UHF antenna. It may work with higher channel VHF, but it's something to remember.

[A J Ricaud]

STEVEL, a frequent poster, posted on 1/3/06, 11:59 AM, that he had one on order, but he has not reported back.

Steve, if you are out there, any update for us?

[stevel]

Yup. Instead of "first week of January" it was more like "last week", but it did arrive. I got the amplified version. Actually installing it somewhere will have to wait, but I did prop it up in a second floor window that faces south. (Window closed.) Most of the digital TV transmitters are in Boston, 34 miles to the south-southeast. There are also some transmitters 15-20 miles away to the north and northeast. I hooked up to the HR10-250 and asked it to scan the channels. It got every single Boston channel except one (WBZ-DT), plus nearly all of the NH channels, plus a couple of others in other directions I had not expected to receive. Signal strengths were as high as the 80s, depending on how I positioned the antenna.

I don't have anything to compare it to, but I was favorably impressed.

The Lacrosse was larger than I had been thinking it was (probably the site gives the dimensions but I glossed over them), and the antenna itself weighs maybe 10 pounds or so. The one glitch is that the mounting hardware they supplied didn't have bolt holes that lined up well with the antenna's bracket and didn't match the illustration in the manual - I will call them about that.

I was thinking of mounting it in my attic come spring, and it would probably work well there until I get snow on the roof... Around here, some winters that happens a lot, though not this year so far. I'll think of other options.

Based on the little testing I did, I can give the amplified Lacrosse a positive recommendation, especially if the transmitters are 30-40 miles away. If they're closer, you may be able to do with the non-amplified version. It certainly doesn't seem to be overly sensitive to aiming and did a surprisingly good job on stations to the rear, which I did not expect based on the literature.

[JimSpence]

What frequencies is it receiving? Do you have any low to mid range VHF stations?

[camcollect]

I also received mine last week...amplified version.

My frequencies are 13, 19, 25, 34, 45 and 46. The transmitters are from 3 to 15 miles away but I live in a heavily wooded area.

I still have not properly installed the antennae, the instructions and mounting supplies are lacking. I did a temp install and was not able to get a clear signal for all channels with out repositioning. My stations range from 263 to 317 degrees.

I then set the antenna face down on my chimney, climbed down off the roof and bingo....all the stations come in great. Whats up with that??

I will try again this weekend to get it on a mast and see what happens.

[osultan]

I had sent e-mail to Solid Signal asking about an in attic install, since I wanted to see if I could pull in any Bay area stations--I currently have a ChannelMaster Smartenna with great results. The answer the came back was that it would not work, but the response itself left me somewhat skeptical, so I may still try it--curious to know what others try.

[stevel]

AntennasDirect says that an attic install will reduce the signal strength by half. Maybe that will work for you, maybe not - they, reasonably so, aren't going to tell you it will work.

All of my digital stations are UHF.

[pat_h20]

I don't have one, but I understand that it is meant to be an antenna for people who don't like the look of antennas. I have read some information from Antennas Direct/Terrestrial Digital that basically said it was the first good looking antenna on the market that was actually able to perform as well as other antennas.

I read a pre-release review of it in HDTV Etc. magazine late last year. I found a reprint of it, but I am new here, so it won't let me enter in any links. But if you go to Terrestrial Digital's website and visit the news section, they have a reprint of the article posted.