Can anyone explain to me the correlation between signal strength and signal quality? My American channels are showing a signal strength of about 35% and my Canadian channels are coming in at about 50% but the signal quality on all channels is 100%. The pictures are crystal clear and rock solid. How can a relatively weak signal still produce a perfect picture?

Remember that you trying to recover a stream of digital data. So long as the receiver has enough signal to decode the data stream, then you will get 100% quality. Additional signal strength won't change anything. If the signal weakens such that the receiver loses pieces of the data stream, you will see quality decline. You won't notice any change in picture quality at first, because the digital stream has error correction built-in. Audio drop-outs, picture freezes, and blockiness occure when too much data is lost for the error correction to repair.

wardsislander, also see Post #17 in the OTA FAQ for a further explanation.

gould, can you provide us with more information about your setup? Specifically, what type of antenna you're using? And what direction it's pointing in?! If you cannot identify the antenna, could you post a picture of it?

Channel 11 is currently a VHF station with reduced power (vs. the analog signal). They plan to move to UHF soon, which may restore coverage for you.
I'm not sure how to get pictures in this reply, but I think you should be able to see my antenna pictures in the new albums. Pointing at Buffalo/CN Tower.

I'm not sure how to get pictures in this reply, but I think you should be able to see my antenna pictures in the new albums. Pointing at Buffalo/CN Tower.
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/picture.php?albumid=990&pictureid=5277

test

Gould,

If you have that much metal up in the sky and you can't get WNED, there is something signficant wrong with the setup.

It is probably the balun, the wiring, the connectors, the broken antenna, or all-of-the-above.

I suggest you go and purchase a four-bay antenna such as the Antennas Direct DB4e, or the Antennas Direct Clearstream 2 Complete (comes with VHF attachment), or a Channel Master 4221hd.

Climb half-way up the tower, about roof level, safely, bolt the antenna to the side of the tower, run new RG6 Coax Wire to a TV and scan.

Enjoy 25 more years of OTA.

Thanks. I like that about all the metal I've got.

Hi There. I'm new to the forum and I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with antennas other than the Channel Master, which everybody seems to be recommending. I'm interested in getting a sleeker looking antenna to mount on my house in the east end of Toronto (Gerrard and Carlaw) and am considering the RCA Ant 800 or the Terk FDTVO. These are both amplified and omnidirectional and seem to be rated highly, but don't to be referenced at all in the Toronto threads. Thanks for your help.

Minutethirty,

Welcome to the forum. The sleeker-looking antennas you're referring to have been around for a long time and the most knowledgeable people here like Stampeder know about those antennas. In spite of that, they still don't make Stampder's Recommended Antennas Chart.

A built-in-amplified antenna might be the worst option for you considering how close you are to the CN Tower and its powerful signals. The amp could cause several of your Buffalo channels to drop-out if you have signal overload.

Also, the omnidirectional characteristic is not something that you want from your location. You would probably be much better off with a directional antenna with a wide beam width, such as a two or four-bay bowtie antenna, or the like.

We can't change the laws of physics so there really are only a couple of optimal antenna sizes and shapes. The radio-waves in the air that your antenna must catch are the same no matter what antenna you're using. If you want good reliable reception, then you have to go with an antenna that is cut to the appropriate size and shape to most efficiently catch the signals you want from the air.

People always like sleek-looking antennas but you must understand there is a compromise of performance in favour of aesthetics.

There are some excellent alternatives to the Channel Master antennas that have a more-appealing appearance that will give you the same, similar, or maybe even better results:

Look at these:
Antennas Direct DB4e or DB2e
Antennas Direct ClearStream 2 or Clearstream 2 Complete

These antennas are becoming more well-known and will likely appear on future versions of the Antennas Chart. In fact, Stampeder's chart already lists the older versions of the above noted antennas. The newer versions are improved versions.

You should really learn about the Antennas Direct company. It is American. It is owned-by (I think) and employs engineers actively working to improve antenna performance. It is creative, innovative, has an eye-for-design, and they don't make significant compromises for looks. Yet their antennas are very good-looking. If I have a chance this summer, I will likely replace my antenna set-up with an Antennas Direct DB4e antenna for UHF.

If the Terk hasn't shown up on the chart yet, I doubt you'll see it there anytime soon.

Please post your TV Fool report and I'll give you a non-Channel Master recommendation.

Good luck!

minutethirty

Get a DB4e, I have good result out of this little 4 bay.

When it is mounted high above the roof, the dark color reflector don't make this antenna very 'obvious' (compare to CM4221) when view from the ground.

I got a 4228HD since Saveandreplay said the 4221HD would not pick up CTV. It cost twice as much so I hope that's good advice.

Congrats on taking action, Gould! I know you have been thinking about this since last year so I'm glad you have bought something.

We are close-by. A 4221hd is plenty fine for rf9 even though it is VHF. You're only about ten miles from the CN Tower so it would work in spite of itself.

But the 4228hd is also an excellent choice for you and my recommendation vs. the recommendation of Save & Replay is just a matter-of-opinion. Either antenna will work fine for you. Once you see your antenna on your tower pulling in 25+ channels you'll forget about the cost of the antenna.

The cost of even the most deluxe of OTA setups are fully recovered within a few months of cancelling the cable.

Enjoy your OTA!

I recommend directing your antenna at WGRZ. Toronto will likely come in reliably off the side of the antenna. Inch back toward Toronto as necessary. If Toronto and Buffalo come in reliably onthe first try, then try inching toward Batavia in hopes of adding WPXJ ION to your channels. That's where the wide beam width of the four-bay might have helped you.

Report your results!

Hello all,

HARDWARE:
Roof mounted CM4221HD (approx 25-30ft) pointed at NBCish(2)
WINEGARD HDP-269
1 TV (currently)
TV Fool - http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d7fcf81cc52e0a1

I have 1 giant tree obstructing my direct line to the states aprox 30 ft from my antenna but aimed it the best i could.

I purchased an WINEGARD HDP-269 to combat my issues with not receiving channels 4 and 7 well. I was receiving 2 without any issue which really confused me as nbc is a hard channel to get.

Channel List before Preamp
2
5
9
17
19
23
29
41
47
57
69


So i installed the preamp and to my surprise i LOST 2 and 23 but GAINED 4 and 7... how does that work!?!

Channels with Preamp

4
5
7
9
17
19
29
41
47
49 (hit or miss)
57
69

I plan to mess with the setup once the weather gets nicer. Maybe its an aiming issue? I tried a 6db atennuator and it made me loose 2,4,7 and 23 Ill take any suggestions. I realy like 4 and 7 but miss 23 (and once olympics come 2-nbc!)

Could it just be an aiming issue?

Could you give us a main intersection that you are close to?

Maybe the tree is causing the problem. I know this advice might be poo-pooed around here, but if you own that tree, you could possibly mount the antenna on the tree where the USA is not blocked. It is less-than-ideal, but it is an option worth testing, and it may be your only option.

At my cottage, I have a 4228hd with a 7777 hooked on a tree and we're getting 100% stable reception of our channels.

cross street is st clair and scarlet (scarlet / dundas)
the tree is 2 doors down so not mine to cut

That specific intersection has decent signal strength on all of the main US networks. But there are a couple of nearby low-lying residential streets where there are dead spots for some of the signals. Assuming you're not on a nearby lower-elevation street, your problem could be that tree and you'll just have to keep tinkering with your system. It sounds like you're getting close to decent reception. Keep on trying!

Okay, so I'm still having a bit of an issue with CHCH.. I'm not too worried about it because of the impending switch to UHF 15, but I would still like to try and understand what's going on..

Setup: DB4e - Winegard, YA17-13, each running into the seperate inputs of a CM7778. The two antenna's are pointed about 18 degree's away from each other.

All is working as it should; however, on one television there is blocky, artificating (I think that's what it's called). It's not the blockiness of low signal -it's more like when the scene changes quickly there are blocks that hold the colour of the last scene. Once the new scene is in place it runs fine, until there is another quick scene change??

I suspect that it has something to do with the tuner on that TV that is somehow getting interferance from the VHF signal that is being picked up on the UHF antenna, either that or something to do with over amplification of Channel 11??

I'm not going back on the roof, any other fix?

Hi Jake, I would try a 6db attenuator.
Thats an easy indoor fix for overamping.
You're too close to cntower for a 7777.

Here is a trade-off I think I face right now: move from a somewhat elderly CM4221 to a CM4228 (despite being heavier) or mount a new 4221 three or four feet higher?

My TVFool for 35 feet is:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dde657dbfcca43c

and for 32 feet is:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3dde654361c54cb6

Stations of interest seem to all have line-of-sight advantage. No difference in reception I can tell from the TVFool results (except NBC-2 seems to slip into LOS at higher height). Which suggests all benefits will be from increasing bay count. CN Tower and Buffalo nearly identical bearing.

We get Buffalo 96% OK but not as good as we'd like. And CTV-9 (which broadcasts on VHF-9 for some OTA-hostile reason) is not good enough - and the CM4228 UHF antenna is reputed to be adequate for such local VHF-upper band stations.

Any opinions?

Thanks.
Ben

Ben,
Height is always the answer. :)
I suspect, in your case, less bays would work better. You have the ducks in a row problem; Buffalo is behind CN Tower, so you're swamped with too much Toronto signal and not enough Buffalo signal.
I've installed a few around there and the best success we've had was either a DB-2e or a square shooter or a C2. Those 3 were better than 4221 and way better than DB-8.
All of that experimenting was around St.Clair/bathurt/Spadina.
Good Luck!!