A Lesson Learned on OTA

[TonyD79]

As we all know, the HR10 is notorious for multipath problems. I live about 12 miles from the Baltimore tower(s) and get strong signal on most stations (one is pretty damned weak but that is because they have a squirrel in a cage powering it) but had had problems with multipath, especially after the trees did their striptease.

I tried the Silver Sensor, I tried bowties, I tried a Terk and a Philips unit that did great all summer..until winter came. One station in particular was horrible and others were inconsistent. My TV tuner is steadier with all of the antennas but still had some issues.

Today, I grabbed a simple RCA antenna for five whole bucks at Target. No amp. No adjustments. I didn't even put the VHF rods on it. Put it on top of my TV and all stations perfect. The meters read 88 to 92 and vary only 1 or 2 digits even after a few minutes of watching them.

The lesson: Less is more. All the fancy solutions can mean nothing. Get back to the basics.

[TyroneShoes]

I think you may have jumped to a conclusion. The lesson might actually be that sometimes you just get lucky.

Typically, the best course is to step up the sophistication when faced with a reception problem, but there are situations where the planets align and something simple will actually work better. That is the exception, tho, and hardly the rule. The "fancy solutions" are based on very sound scientific principles, and are tried and true. But, the environment we apply them in has a great number of variables, and sometimes the combination can indeed turn out to be something simple. DT can be received flawlessly on a paper clip if the variables are right. Every broken clock is right twice a day.

Nevertheless, it is still really cool that you found something that works for you.

[az_double_eagle]

. . .

The lesson: Less is more. All the fancy solutions can mean nothing. Get back to the basics.

In my experience, I had the biggest OTA success with the $5 "FM Trap" from Radio Shack, that improved my OTA reception tremendously.

[JimSpence]

The biggest lesson learned is that each case is different. Too many parameters involved to lump into one solution. There's distance, obstuctions, hills, frequency, and tuner sensitivity to consider.

[jeffshoaf]

I think, at least in some instances, that what people assume are multi-path issues are actually signals over powering the inputs. My understanding is that the "signal strength" meters are actually bit error detectors - the more non-error bits you get, the higher the reading.

If I can use my own experience as an example, I'm within 5 miles of two transmitters that are on towers on top of a mountain, but my other local stations are 40 to 60 miles in the opposite direction on towers (no mountain in that direction). I have a fair size outdoor antenna mounted on my chimney with a preamp inserted just before the line enters my house. I was picking up the distant stations with OK signal strength (with the antenna pointed in that direction), but one of the stations was bad to break up and be picky about exactly where the antenna was pointed. The two near stations would sometimes come in very well with the antenna pointed in their direction, but once the leaves dropped off the trees, they started exhibiting what I thought was multi-path issues: the signal meters were jumping all over the place (with the two inputs showing different levels) and the picture was pixelating and breaking up a lot. At the same time, the direction that I needed to point my antenna to get the distant stations seemed to shift by about 20 degrees.

In preparation for getting a new TV with a built-in tuner, I put a cheap splitter I found in my stash of connectors and miscellaneous cables in line and ran one output tom my HR10-250 and the other to my antenna input on my TV. Now, the distant stations have "shifted" back to their original locations, the distant station that required precise antenna pointing is now no longer as picky, and the two local stations that I though i was getting multi-path are showing good, steady signal strength and the picture is perfect...

So, I dropped my signal level by 1/2 and made my reception much better and more reliable!

[TonyD79]

Why is everyone (almost) crapping on this message?

The message is "don't overthink it." Sometimes the simple solutions are the best. Nothing new has been discovered about RF waves so why think we need all this newfangled stuff.

Oh, and for the suggestion that the problem was overdriving the input on the HR10. Nope. I had problems even with weak signal. Turning down amplifiers on the fancier antennas didn't help, it typically made the problem worse. If it were overdrive, the opposite would happen.

My message is simple. Keep it simple. Don't over-engineer your antennas, especially for sites close to TV towers.

[Markman07]

In my experience, I had the biggest OTA success with the $5 "FM Trap" from Radio Shack, that improved my OTA reception tremendously.

Can you show me what this FM Trap is from Radio Shack? Is it on their website? I was at Radio Shack last week and asked about this and he had know idea. He looked like I was calling some running play in a football game.

[phox_mulder]

Can you show me what this FM Trap is from Radio Shack? Is it on their website? I was at Radio Shack last week and asked about this and he had know idea. He looked like I was calling some running play in a football game.

I tried finding it on their website and couldn't.

Maybe they don't carry it anymore?


phox

[reh523]

Can you show me what this FM Trap is from Radio Shack? Is it on their website? I was at Radio Shack last week and asked about this and he had know idea. He looked like I was calling some running play in a football game.

If you are close to an FM station, there might be a narrow range between too much and too little amplifier gain. You can make that range larger by using an amplifier with an FM trap or by using a more directional antenna. VHF preamplifiers usually include FM traps that can optionally be disabled. Freestanding FM traps are also available. FM traps can either cover the entire FM band or can be single frequency traps that you tune to the offending station. The former are less effective and tend to attenuate channel 6. If the FM station is close enough you might need more than one FM trap.

Picture of one.... (http://www.kyes.com/antenna/interference/fm/fmtrap.jpg)

[stiffi]

As we all know, the HR10 is notorious for multipath problems. I live about 12 miles from the Baltimore tower(s) and get strong signal on most stations (one is pretty damned weak but that is because they have a squirrel in a cage powering it) but had had problems with multipath, especially after the trees did their striptease.

I tried the Silver Sensor, I tried bowties, I tried a Terk and a Philips unit that did great all summer..until winter came. One station in particular was horrible and others were inconsistent. My TV tuner is steadier with all of the antennas but still had some issues.

Today, I grabbed a simple RCA antenna for five whole bucks at Target. No amp. No adjustments. I didn't even put the VHF rods on it. Put it on top of my TV and all stations perfect. The meters read 88 to 92 and vary only 1 or 2 digits even after a few minutes of watching them.

The lesson: Less is more. All the fancy solutions can mean nothing. Get back to the basics.

Tony where are you located? You're sig says Columbia but that can't be if you're 12 miles from TV Hill.

I ask because I still have terrible problems with Baltimore OTA and the HR10-250. I've tried everything I can think of barring, a new simple antenna. WBAL seems to be the worst offender. Was that the same for you?

[TyroneShoes]

Why is everyone (almost) crapping on this message?

The message is "don't overthink it." Sometimes the simple solutions are the best. Nothing new has been discovered about RF waves so why think we need all this newfangled stuff.

Oh, and for the suggestion that the problem was overdriving the input on the HR10. Nope. I had problems even with weak signal. Turning down amplifiers on the fancier antennas didn't help, it typically made the problem worse. If it were overdrive, the opposite would happen.

My message is simple. Keep it simple. Don't over-engineer your antennas, especially for sites close to TV towers.
If you have an understanding of what is really going on in DT reception you would also understand that there really is no way to "over-engineer" a consumer antenna system. What is possible is to engineer it either properly or improperly within the parameters of 8VSB reception, and that varies greatly by location, but the principles remain constant. You could apply those principles wrong-headedly, such as adding an amp when signal levels are already high, but if you understand the issues and follow the principles correctly in the first place there is no opportunity for true "over-engineering".

I'm sorry you feel that we're crapping on your message, but to be perfectly frank it might just not be the right message for most viewers. While it may be true that nothing new has been "discovered" about "RF waves", one of the prevailing things that affects reception on a consumer level is that folks quite often try to apply the principles uniquely relevant to analog reception to their attempts at digital reception, and they have limited success precisely because the principles and practices are actually quite different, sometimes polar opposites. This means that those who ignore the "newfangled" principles will have a devil of a time if they are in a difficult reception area. Once armed with the new principles, the task becomes much easier.

You can keep it simple and still attack the problem in ways that follow the principles of DT reception. "Over-thinking" it is impossible unless you allow the definition of that to include thinking about things in ways that don't follow the principles. My advice is to start small and do the easy things first, and upgrade your efforts to the more sophisticated only when what you've done so far doesn't yield the results you want.

As far as manipulating carrier levels, that again depends greatly on the location. In a location where signal is moderately low, for instance, turning up the gain will usually give a lower bit-rate error (or higher signal quality reading), and turning it up too far will cause that reading to start to go back down. If the signal is already high enough, the SQR will go down, and if the signal is very low, it should go up. And the amount of interference will have a large affect on this, too, which is why "newfangled" antennae that are highly directional seem to work so well for DT.

Because you had a serendipidous result in your unique location with an inexpensive solution, that is no reason to assume that there is not value in a sophisticated approach. The simple will work for some, and the more-sophisticated will work for others. Both are valid. We're on your side, but we don't want the fact that sometimes it can be simple to frustrate those who will need a more sophisticated approach.

[bwaldron]

Because you had a serendipidous result in your unique location with an inexpensive solution, that is no reason to assume that there is not value in a sophisticated approach. The simple will work for some, and the more-sophisticated will work for others. Both are valid. We're on your side, but we don't want the fact that sometimes it can be simple to frustrate those who will need a more sophisticated approach.

Good message. Sure, simple is great when it works, and is the best thing to try first (if the chances for success look at all reasonable)...but when it doesn't work, other means to the end must be found.

I'm lucky in that I'm within a few miles of the towers for all my stations, save for one that is 30+ miles away in the opposite direction. Don't know if two antennae combined with a Jointenna qualifies as simple, but it's rock solid for me.

[Redux]

It may have been the "Mary Tyler Moore" series. A character had won several bets in a row in football and her(?) colleagues were all agog. She (?) had a system, she said, and it worked every time. Come Super Bowl, they all bet on the pick. Only at halftime, losing months worth of salary by avalanche proportions, did someone inquire as to just what the system was. "Bet on the purple uniforms; if there's no purple bet on the color closest to purple." A lesson learned. Simple. Works. Don't over-complicate it. Bet on the purple.

[ddarche]

I agree with the "over" powered inputs in this thread. I have experimented with the Radio Shack variable attenuator and found joy. It is a 0 to -20db attenuator. Inexpensive solution.

Dave

[tucsonbill]

If you have an understanding of what is really going on in DT reception you would also understand that there really is no way to "over-engineer" a consumer antenna system. What is possible is to engineer it either properly or improperly within the parameters of 8VSB reception.... I think Tony was actually talking about "over engineering" the solution, not the physical antenna. I would agree with him that there ain't much new under the sun. WRT the parameters of "8VSB reception" you and I both know the words "digital" and "digital ready" as applied to TV antennas is nonsense.
...one of the prevailing things that affects reception on a consumer level is that folks quite often try to apply the principles uniquely relevant to analog reception to their attempts at digital reception....
You can keep it simple and still attack the problem in ways that follow the principles of DT reception. "Over-thinking" it is impossible unless you allow the definition of that to include thinking about things in ways that don't follow the principles. My advice is to start small and do the easy things first, and upgrade your efforts to the more sophisticated only when what you've done so far doesn't yield the results you want.
I do believe in keeping it simple. However, as you are well aware, the experience level and understanding in this forum is as varied as the local reception conditions. What's simple to me, or you, might appear complex to many here. I have seen nothing suggested in these forums that is either complex or particularly sophisticated. I would believe that if a simple straightforward solution doesn't work, what will be required is beyond most DIYers. (not because the tapping's hard, but because you have to know where to tap -- and when all the tapping in the world isn't going to matter.)

Some things I believe (and you certainly might be able to disuade me from some of them):

1. A modern RF front end should not be swamped by the signal from a TV tower 10 miles distant.

2. Attenuators and Splitters -- If these solve your digital reception problem, the problem was most likely a) multi path or b) an interfering station whose presence you are unaware of. (See 1 above)

3. If you really, really don't want an antenna on your roof, try a set top model, but the first time you start having problems go get the rooftop model. (Saving a trip to the roof isn't worth having to tolerate the spousal complaints.)

4. No matter what the guy at ___________ (Home Depot, Radio Shack, Best Buy,etc.) tells you, you probably don't need an amplifier on your antenna if you're only 15-20 miles from the tower with a clear line of sight. (if you do, it can be added later.) You particularly don't need an amplifier so that you can add an attenuator or splitter later to fix your reception problems. (See1 and 2 above)

5. You just can't beat a good yagi for most all cases. For UHF a good yagi with a corner reflector (the part on the front end of most combos.)

6. Size your antenna properly. A "fair size outdoor antenna with a preamp " used to receive stations 40 to 60 miles away is not what you should expect to use for the tower that's 5 miles away on a mountain top.
That being said, if you're 5 to 20 miles from the tower with a clear shot buy the smallest cheapest yagi you can get for your first try. (and probably last) Don't buy a vhf/uhf combo if all of you stations are uhf. (see 1, 2, and 4 above.)

7. Don't buy an omnidirectional antenna. If you have stations in more than one direction (by more than 10-15 degrees) you need a different solution. (Multiple antennas or a rotator.) Which is best for you depends on a number of things.

8. Do buy the cheapest antenna you can. Most of the things that make antennas cost more aren't things you care enough about to pay for.

9. If you asses your situation and decide you need an amplified antenna, you might consider cable. Why so negative about amplified antennas? For consumer use (and consumer pricing) what I've seen have very limited application. If you have a generally good, but sometimes marginal signal they may work great. If you have a crappy signal the most likely result from the addition of an amplifier is an stronger crappy signal.

10. If you truly have a clear line of sight to the tower you're trying to receive from you shouldn't have a problem with a properly sized directional antenna. If you don't have a clear line of sight, consider cable. (see 4 and 6 above)

[TonyD79]

IMy advice is to start small and do the easy things first, and upgrade your efforts to the more sophisticated only when what you've done so far doesn't yield the results you want.


Buried in all your high-falutin' blather (and your assumptions about my background that are inherent in your talking down to me) you said right here EXCATLY what I was saying.

I never claimed I had a one-size-fits-all solution. I am simply encouraging people to try simple solutions before they jump into more complicated ones.

Sheesh.

I am glad to say that in 5 days, however, I have seen only one minor dropout and that might have been some other kind of glitch.

[TonyD79]

Tony where are you located? You're sig says Columbia but that can't be if you're 12 miles from TV Hill.


Dorsey Search. Just how far do you think Television Hill is on a straight line? I was surprised that it was as far as 12 miles (according to antennaweb). Thought it would be more like 10.

It is about 17 driving miles but RF waves don't follow roads. :)

[TyroneShoes]

My advice is to start small and do the easy things first, and upgrade your efforts to the more sophisticated only when what you've done so far doesn't yield the results you want...
...you said right here EXCATLY what I was saying.

I never claimed I had a one-size-fits-all solution. I am simply encouraging people to try simple solutions before they jump into more complicated ones.

Sheesh....
Well, apparently that is not actually the case. THIS...
...The lesson: Less is more. All the fancy solutions can mean nothing. Get back to the basics....how you ended your original post, is "EXCATLY" [sic] what you were saying, which is quite different than anything I ever said in this thread, and is what I was responding to.

And HOW I was responding to that was that I was actually trying to be nice. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone is, but if you read between the lines you will see that I was only very gently trying to present a different opinion, not attacking your opinion. If you want to take offense because I went on record as disagreeing with you, and you assumed I was talking down to you, well then you are beyond help, again IMHO, and I will probably quickly run out of patience trying to hold a conversation with you. But that also does not mean I have any beef with you or hold you in low regard. I don't, and I don't. I just strongly disagree with one of your opinions. I see no crime in that.

But since you want to beat that dead horse some more, to be very honest, I think your opinion is completely wrong, and that your stating it as being the end-all solution does a disservice to folks who come here for help. And just because you say you were not claiming a "one-size-fits-all solution" does not mean that this is not exactly what was implied by your choice of words. Your approach was interpreted by me as "I found the secret, and here it is. Nothing else has meaning." Now, I freely admit it's true that I had to read some of that intent into it, but it was a short trip, and I think many could have interpreted it the same way. To me, that seemed really arrogant, and dismissive of the science of engineering, which has paid my house note for a couple of decades. So, I could not let that pass without at least presenting an alternative opinion. If that was not how you meant it, then fine. I apologize if you were offended.

I could have approached responding a number of ways. Since I neither wanted to pick a fight with you or belittle your opinion, I decided first to not attack your opinion as being utterly ridiculous. I decided to give you credit for the fact that a simple solution is sometimes the best solution. But it is not the only solution, and that was the simple point and probably the only point I was trying to make.

So, it's as simple as that. I wish you well, I am glad that you found something that works for you, and I honestly look forward to more posts from you. But I will lose not one second of sleep that you seem unable to discuss this without having a problem with it. That's on you. My conscience is crystal clear.

Maybe we could just agree to disagree. And you can have the final word. Regarding the points discussed so far, I'm out.

[TonyD79]

Well, you evidentally can't read despite your ability to type many, many words.

Getting back to basics is the same as start small...

I made the mistake of overthinking rather than starting small and escalating. I went more complicated and got into a loop of twisting and turning with complicated solutions. Why I did that was not because it is my tendency but because forums like this one always talk about complicated (non-basic) solutions and I followed the folks that for the most part gave good advice.

I am only trying to tell people to not over think. To "start with the basics."

I guess you missed the word "can" in my message.

So, stop telling me what I mean when I spell it out for you you say that is not what I mean

You are the one with the problem. When I clarify what I mean you tell me that is not what I mean at all. Not only are you condescending but you evidentally read minds as well.

Oh, and your use of [sic] on a minor typo shows just how much of a pompous fool you are being here.

[bwaldron]

Well, you evidentally can't read despite your ability to type many, many words.

Getting back to basics is the same as start small...

I made the mistake of overthinking rather than starting small and escalating. I went more complicated and got into a loop of twisting and turning with complicated solutions. Why I did that was not because it is my tendency but because forums like this one always talk about complicated (non-basic) solutions and I followed the folks that for the most part gave good advice.

I am only trying to tell people to not over think. To "start with the basics."

I guess you missed the word "can" in my message.

So, stop telling me what I mean when I spell it out for you you say that is not what I mean

You are the one with the problem. When I clarify what I mean you tell me that is not what I mean at all. Not only are you condescending but you evidentally read minds as well.

Oh, and your use of [sic] on a minor typo shows just how much of a pompous fool you are being here.

I'm not sure I agree with the contention that complicated solutions are the common advice here as optimal/preferred. Typically folks who post here have already tried the simple stuff and are looking for other solutions.

You are correct -- try simple first. Check antennaweb or other similar sites to get a feel for what might/should work for a given situation, and don't over-engineer. But if things remain wonky, there is good advice to be had here and --especially-- at AVSForums, not least the local reception threads.

[sisterzero]

If you are close to an FM station, there might be a narrow range between too much and too little amplifier gain. You can make that range larger by using an amplifier with an FM trap or by using a more directional antenna. VHF preamplifiers usually include FM traps that can optionally be disabled. Freestanding FM traps are also available. FM traps can either cover the entire FM band or can be single frequency traps that you tune to the offending station. The former are less effective and tend to attenuate channel 6. If the FM station is close enough you might need more than one FM trap.

Picture of one.... (http://www.kyes.com/antenna/interference/fm/fmtrap.jpg)

I swear I've looked all over but cannot locate an FM trap. Radio Shack hasn't a clue here in Chicago at least...I've called a few. Is there another name for it? Where can one be purchased? Most appreciated...! :rolleyes:

[Charlutz]

Hey Tony -

I am in River Hill. I've had OTA issues with my basement HR10 for a couple years. Part of the problem is because it's in the basement. Anyway, best solution has been the double bow tie. It worked real well for about 9 months, but has gotten flaky in the past 3 months so I may have to break down and look at a larger, attic mounted rig.

I was also reminded this week that the HR10's tuners seem to be part of the problem. We have a second one in the bedroom that we used for a while without the internal hd tuners. I had installed a wall mounted LCD and ran all the wires/power through the walls and just ran out of steam when it came to connecting the OTA to the set of rabbit ears we had. The rabbit ears were connected to the tv's internal tuner and were fine for checking the weather on NBC's sub channel 2. Every channel came in perfectly clear with no drops using the tv's internal tuner. I finally got around to hooking the antenna to the HR10 this past week. Besides the resulting 6.3a bugs causing missed programs, our reception also went to crap. NBC and CBS have a very shaky signal. I'm sure that I can find the antenna's sweet spot since this set is on the second floor, but the HR10's tuners are considerably worse than the ones built into the tv. I may have to dig out my silver sensor if the HR 10 doesn't like the rabbit ears after I tune it.

[dbett]

Radio Shack hasn't a clue here in Chicago at least...I've called a few. Is there another name for it? Where can one be purchased? Most appreciated...! :rolleyes:


Wow. RS has really gone down hill. :(

Anyway, you can always just buy one online. Tristate Electronics has one here:

https://www.tselectronic.com/winegard/ft7600.html?tse_Session=0321605f69df2b399e11fb290b60a8a4

[sisterzero]

Wow. RS has really gone down hill. :(

Anyway, you can always just buy one online. Tristate Electronics has one here:

https://www.tselectronic.com/winegard/ft7600.html?tse_Session=0321605f69df2b399e11fb290b60a8a4

Thank you, I'll check this out.

I have to agree with the previous poster here...the HR10's tuners bite. My Hitachi plasma tuners brought in EVERY station in Chicago crystal clear with a cheap-o antenna. Once I hooked the cable into the HR10 that's when the misery started.

Question: can the HR10's tuner be upgraded in any way? I have read the very long thread here about replacing the wires, etc... But what about a new tuner for the HR10...is that possible? How can a tv tuner be better than a device who's main purpose other than recording, is to pull in signals and transmit them to a television? :mad:

[poppagene]

I swear I've looked all over but cannot locate an FM trap. Radio Shack hasn't a clue here in Chicago at least...I've called a few. Is there another name for it? Where can one be purchased? Most appreciated...! :rolleyes:

The Radioshack part number was 15-577c. They stopped carrying them, but you may be able to find one. Also, you may find them for cheap on ebay auctions such as http://cgi.ebay.com/999-0577-Radio-Shack-75-Ohm-Coax-F-Type-FM-Trap_W0QQitemZ170070503748QQcmdZViewItem

[TonyD79]

Hey Tony -

I am in River Hill. I've had OTA issues with my basement HR10 for a couple years. Part of the problem is because it's in the basement. Anyway, best solution has been the double bow tie. It worked real well for about 9 months, but has gotten flaky in the past 3 months so I may have to break down and look at a larger, attic mounted rig.

I was also reminded this week that the HR10's tuners seem to be part of the problem. We have a second one in the bedroom that we used for a while without the internal hd tuners. I had installed a wall mounted LCD and ran all the wires/power through the walls and just ran out of steam when it came to connecting the OTA to the set of rabbit ears we had. The rabbit ears were connected to the tv's internal tuner and were fine for checking the weather on NBC's sub channel 2. Every channel came in perfectly clear with no drops using the tv's internal tuner. I finally got around to hooking the antenna to the HR10 this past week. Besides the resulting 6.3a bugs causing missed programs, our reception also went to crap. NBC and CBS have a very shaky signal. I'm sure that I can find the antenna's sweet spot since this set is on the second floor, but the HR10's tuners are considerably worse than the ones built into the tv. I may have to dig out my silver sensor if the HR 10 doesn't like the rabbit ears after I tune it.

Yeah, the HR10 tuner is pretty crappy. I have been having perfect reception since I started using a simple RCA loop antenna. It works well on my TV, my HR10 and my HR20.

The HR10 is very susceptible to multipath and to overload.

[sisterzero]

The Radioshack part number was 15-577c. They stopped carrying them, but you may be able to find one. Also, you may find them for cheap on ebay auctions such as http://cgi.ebay.com/999-0577-Radio-Shack-75-Ohm-Coax-F-Type-FM-Trap_W0QQitemZ170070503748QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks much, just purchased one off eBay, most appreciated.