Read through this thread that covers the Richmond Hill area:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=36537

People in Richmond Hill require an excellent outdoor antenna like a CM4221 for Toronto and at least a CM4228 if they intend to try for Buffalo stations. A Square Shooter will probably get just the Toronto stations.

cheers

Yes, I think you're right.

I know of people getting Toronto and Buffalo stations with a large old style antenna down in Oshawa near the lake, but I am about 20 miles north of the lake so probably Toronto stations is all I'd get (which isn't bad if I get them all clear). If they all broadcast from the CN Tower, then I should be able to get them all and that would be fine.

The thread you linked above unfortunately has very little on stealth units - almost all users discuss their success with large antennae. Shucks.

After unpacking several Winegard antennas - I am thoroughly annoyed with whatever it is that the manufacturer uses as a presumed coating or joint lube.

A filthy, black mess I soon become whenever I handle them.

Does anyone know just what this stuff is -- almost seems too black to just be a machining oil, could it be something along the line of a graphite mix??

Sheesh...

Yuck, sounds like dielectric grease.

Is the Winegard SS-3000 Sharpshooter a good choice for an indoor antenna. Was going to pick the CM4200 but I want channels like CBC and CTV and that isn't a VHF antenna.

Edit 1: Location: 170 Chalkfarm Dr., Toronto ON.

I own a sharpshooter, and I noticed an improved VHF (both lo and hi) reception when I switched from a ZSS. UHF was essentially the same.

Solid Signal has two new Winegards, the FV-HD45 and FV-HD60. Both appear to be made from the same parts as the 769 series (which, in turn, are made from the same parts as the 7080/8200 series).
Funny thing is, this means that Winegard now has seven 7-69 antennas-
Model Boom
7694 65"
FV-HD45 67"
7695 90"
7696 111"
FV-HD60 124"
7697 131"
7698 168"
There are no published gain figures for the FVs, and I can't tell from the photos how they are split (UHF vs VHF portions). But it seems to me like a lot of product duplication.
The new FVs have one curious feature- they include low-VHF elements that can be installed, or left in the box. I guess this is a realization that some stations are going to remain on lowband for a while.

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?mc=03&p=FV-HD60&d=Winegard-FVHD60-Free-Vision-High-Definition-Outdoor-High-VHF-UHF-TV-Antenna-FreeVision-with-Included-Low-Band-VHF-AddOn-(FVHD60)&c=TV%20Antennas&sku=615798400538
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?mc=03&p=FV-HD45&d=Winegard-FVHD45-Free-Vision-High-Definition-Outdoor-High-VHF-UHF-TV-Antenna-FreeVision-with-Included-Low-Band-VHF-AddOn-(FVHD45)&c=TV%20Antennas&sku=615798400545

Supposedly , they have a new element design that "captures more digital signal"; pure marketing lingo, or is there some substance to this claim?

Lingo. Signal is signal. It doesn't matter if it's carrying digital TV, FM, AM, or Morse code.

It may be true that these designs have more gain than others over part of the TV spectrum or now cover more of the spectrum than they used to. Without specifications, it is hard to tell.

Most likely this translates to antennas optimized to the new (reduced) television band (though without technical details we don't know). This type of optimization can result in up to 3dB of increased gain with only a slight increase in antenna size. If you are in a market that still has stations in the 700MHz band, this optimization would result in a very significant reduction in gain for those stations however.

Okay I hope Roger and Jase can help me out again ?

I will be putting up a Winegard HD7698P antenna tomorrow.
The connection cartridge appears to have some components mounted on a little circuit board - do you guys put (spray) any kind of corrosion inhibitor on the board eg: Fluid Film etc ?

Also same question on the Channelmaster CM777Y preamp ? - although the circuitry appears better protected within the diecast housing

Thank you again for the info on the terminator plug.

Jerry :D

Hi,

I am a brand new forum member and after having spent hours on this site, I am committed to getting rid of my cable and going 100% OTA. I have read the decision making chart and have decided, based on the recommendations made by stampeder, to go with the Winegard HD7078p. However, it seems that this product is either not being manufactured anymore or it is ridiculously hard to get. Does anyone know if it has been replaced by a newer item and if not, would you still recommend it? I live across from Children's Hospital in Vancouver so this seemed to be the recommended product according to your list. I know that technology changes quickly and your list was made two years ago so I'm looking for some advice.

Thanks in advance. I apologize if this question has been asked in another thread but I did sincerely try to search out the answer both online as well as on this forum.

Here is my TV Fool report link:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dc84fdc8716fd9a

Warren Electronics SAYS they are still selling the HD7078p....maybe:
http://www.warrenelectronics.com/antennas/hd7078p.htm

Winegard HD7080p is advertised as replacement with higher Gain and F/B Ratio, but with a longer boom.
It is readily available from multiple sources:
http://www.abletronics.com/winegardant/winegard.html

homeyc, why do you need a 7078? Your only VHF stations are way down in the -33dB NM range, which is way too low a power level to get any kind of reliable reception with.

^^^He does have one analog VHF station (CHAN-TV-2) but this will be the same as CHAN-DT so there is not much point trying to receive it (besides, it will most likely move to UHF when it goes digital sometime within the next 3 years). Ignoring that, he certainly has absolutely no need for an antenna that receives VHF-LO (ch. 2-6) and almost no need for VHF-HI (ch. 7-13) antenna allowing him to focus on UHF.

I suspect that Lo-VHF channels will be repopulated as the "voluntary" spectrum
takeover by the Phone Industry transitions to a mandated shrinkage of the
upper UHF channels...say bye bye to (probably) Ch38 and above:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57522584-38/fcc-kicks-off-effort-to-reclaim-tv-spectrum-for-wireless

^^^Maybe, but I don't think so. This discussion belongs in a different thread however.

holl_ands, my understanding is that the upper UHF spectrum grab will be split into two blocks, one for uplink and one for downlink. One would grow downwards from channel 51, and the other would grow downwards from channel 36.

so we would end up with a split UHF broadcast band, say from 14/22 to 29, and from 38 to 45, if the auction ends up allocating 30 MHz symettrically to uplink and downlink, plus the 6 MHz guard bands.

note that if channel 37 remains reserved (not necessarily a done deal) it provides one of the guard bands, so we only need two, not three.

from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0928/DOC-316527A1.txt
We seek comment on a band plan for reclaimed broadcast television spectrum
using 5 megahertz blocks, in which the uplink band would begin at channel 51 (698 MHz) and expand
downward toward channel 37 based on the amount of reclaimed spectrum, and the downlink band would
begin at channel 36 (608 MHz) and likewise expand downward. We seek comment on establishing 6
megahertz guard bands between mobile broadband use and broadcast use, , and propose to make this
spectrum available for unlicensed use. In addition, we seek comment on a number of alternative band
plan approaches.