Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This looks like it could be used as a 91XG replacement and can be had for surprisingly cheap.

Of course, inexpensive is still too much if it's just another form of the "Pingbingding" antennas "Tyler the antenna man" rails against (just search for Tyler and the antenna name on youtube). Meaning, "useless piece of junk".

So, like the title says, has anyone here purchased such an antenna? Is it worth it?

Cheers.


P.S.: Seriously, that's really the brand of the antenna.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
"Tyler the antenna man" on youtube did test its VHF-HI counterpart, the Stellar Labs 30-2476 and was apparently impressed.

There's a chance both these antennas (30-2370 & 30-2476) perform well, but the very low price compared to other, similar antennas, make me wonder if some corners were cut or not. Unless someone's clearing out a warehouse somewhere, it seems to be too good to be true. I mean, if the pricing I'm seeing is right, you could get both of these antennas for the price of a DB4e with possibly some spare change left!

It would be nice to have "local" confirmation about performance and especially durability. No point of having an antenna that performs well but would not survive a single winter season.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
This looks like it could be used as a 91XG replacement and can be had for surprisingly cheap.
Stellar Labs 30-2370_1.jpg


The 91XG, HDB91X, and Stellar Labs 30-2370 are very similar. The problem is that the original design was for channels 14-69.

UHF TV was reduced to 14-51, and then to 14-36 when frequencies were taken from TV broadcast and given to the cellular interests.

AD 91XG Gain vs Freq2_1.jpg


Now, the lowest gain section of the antenna gain curve is to be used for 14-36. You are at a disadvantage if your weakest important channels are at the very low end of UHF. Otherwise, it's a good buy.

Antennas Direct did rescale the DB2e/4e/8e antennas for 14-51.

AD 91XG Gain vs FreqRev2.jpg


AD DBe Bowtie-end_2.jpg


Manufacturer are not likely to redesign an antenna for 14-36 unless they are certain they will make a profit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Wait, what? There were TWO repacks?

I knew of one, but I didn't realise there were two.

14-36: it made UHF like VHF, not that many possible channels ... :-/

@rabbit73, you said "Manufacturer are not likely to redesign an antenna for 14-36 unless they are certain they will make a profit."; I vaguely remember reading somewhere (and I didn't fully understand it at the time) that Televes was aware/involved (?!) in the "latest repack efforts" and that their antennas were tweaked for that new reality.

I'm starting to wonder if it would be better to pay "the big bucks" and purchase a Televes if I need a new antenna, because they might be offering the most "current" antenna designs. Too bad they can be so expensive.

(Ed.) a quick check tells me their antennas take the 1st repack in account, not the 2nd one (up to ch#51, not #36). Oh, well.


The price for the Stellar labs combo (was 31cad + 47cad when I checked, prices are varying (b/c exchange rates?)) made it very intriguing, I have to say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
Wait, what? There were TWO repacks?

I knew of one, but I didn't realise there were two.
UHF TV Channels

UHF TV was originally 14-83

The frequencies used by UHF channels 70 through 83 were reallocated to the Land Mobile Radio System (Public Safety and Trunked Radio) and mobile phones in a CCIR worldwide convention in 1982, and thus were never used for digital TV but are highlighted in cyan and listed here for theoretical use.

In certain metropolitan areas of the United States, Channels 14 through 20 have been allocated to Land Mobile Radio (LMR) use.
Channels 52 through 69 in the United States have been reallocated now that conversion to digital TV was completed on June 12, 2009. Channels 70 through 83 in the United States and Canada were re-allocated to AMPS cellular phone use in 1983.

Channel 37 is reserved for radio astronomy in the United States, Canada, Bermuda, Belize, and the Bahamas, thus there are no television stations assigned to it.
Due to the FCC repack in the United States, all TV stations that had been broadcasting from channels 38 to 51 were required to move on or below channel 36 by July 3, 2020.
Television channel frequencies
Television channel frequencies - Wikipedia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
@rabbit73 : It's as if someone has a beef with OTA, or something. It's a miracle there are still a few possible RF channels left...
No beef. Cellphone companies wanted it and the governments said sure, I'll take your money. It's not like a ton of people use OTA anymore. There are quite a few knockoffs of every antenna design, this is nothing new. An Asian sweatshop can pump these out for 50 cents probably, from scrap metal/plastic.

Basically, half of those elements are defunct, picking up frequencies you don't want. Do you remember the good old days? I remember picking up a channel 66 from somewhere in Michigan, back in the day.




I wonder why nobody has bought up the AM frequencies? That's the joke of the day... who wants pops and humming every 10 seconds. AM is a joke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It's not like a ton of people use OTA anymore.
Unless I'm mistaken, because of the digital transition, cord-cutting became a viable option for many as you no longer needed cable to have a nice image rather easily. There must have been quite a few people doing it for the expression "cord-cutting" to become noticed by various publications. On a more "local" note, I've seen quite a few antennas pop up in various neighbourhoods, so all in all, maybe OTA watchers aren't that rare?

That photo you posted did bring back some memories...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Unless I'm mistaken, because of the digital transition, cord-cutting became a viable option for many as you no longer needed cable to have a nice image rather easily. There must have been quite a few people doing it for the expression "cord-cutting" to become noticed by various publications. On a more "local" note, I've seen quite a few antennas pop up in various neighbourhoods, so all in all, maybe OTA watchers aren't that rare?

That photo you posted did bring back some memories...
It's not rare, it's just not what the majority is doing. Most people I know subscribe to some pay service to stream and/or get locals. My sister pays $200 for a Fiber internet and TV bundle. There's a few antenna in my area but I'm in a border town. Go to somewhere not close to the border and I bet you don't see too many.

In 2019 it was measured at 14% of US homes having OTA Antenna TV. It was up from 9% in 2010 to 14%.

If I wasn't close to Detroit I'd have 4 stations instead of 58. So if you were in Northern Ontario would you put up an antenna for 0-4 stations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Unfortunately with all the manufacturing coming out of Asia, quality has suffered!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
@rabbit73 : It's as if someone has a beef with OTA, or something. It's a miracle there are still a few possible RF channels left...
My view is unfortunately OTA was never what it was supposed to be. With a 83 channels available most markets Barely Used a tenth of that. It's no wonder the government took it away. Even if they said use it or lose it, over-the-air never really took off like it should have.

Cable TV saw weakness and began to fill in the gaps. OTA should have had many more repeaters/translators to take care of those people that live in valleys or on the other side of hills and mountains. Of course they didn't want to put transmitters everywhere. But look who's doing it now! That's right to cell phone companies the same ones who bought up the Spectrum.

Another thing was finances. Cable TV was able to charge for their service and still play commercials. Of course that's not how it was sold to the American public. I remember when we first got cable in the early 80s. It was $10 a month and there were no commercials. No wonder everybody let their antennas go. Once cable got a foothold people didn't even know that you could get free TV because nobody had an antenna anymore. Funny thing is right across the state line from me in Kenosha Wisconsin there are towers and antennas everywhere because they didn't get cable until much later.

But anyhow, I always wondered why you couldn't get ESPN, the Discovery Channel and other cable/ satellite channels. Well, the answer is money. Of course it is.

And you are right. I'm surprised that there is any free
OTA to be had. Luckily with 3.0, we should be able to get more channels over the remaining Spectrum. Plus there will be a pay-to-play option. And maybe, just maybe we'll be able to get some of our favorite cable TV channels over-the-air.

Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
And you are right. I'm surprised that there is any free
OTA to be had. Luckily with 3.0, we should be able to get more channels over the remaining Spectrum. Plus there will be a pay-to-play option. And maybe, just maybe we'll be able to get some of our favorite cable TV channels over-the-air.

Just my opinion.
I doubt much luck will be had in Canada. They don't support 1.0, can't see these companies spending money to upgrade to 3.0. Unless you are near the US border, I'd say there won't be much if any investment from Canadian companies.

Lots of dumb Canadians willing to spend over $100 on cable channels. It's just streaming now... Bell Fibe is just pay television over the internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Well yes, lots of dumb people everywhere are spending well over $100 for cable TV
I doubt much luck will be had in Canada. They don't support 1.0, can't see these companies spending money to upgrade to 3.0. Unless you are near the US border, I'd say there won't be much if any investment from Canadian companies.

Lots of dumb Canadians willing to spend over $100 on cable channels. It's just streaming now... Bell Fibe is just pay television over the internet.
Well yes, lots of dumb people everywhere are spending well over $100 a month for cable TV upwards of $ 200 for internet phone, cable TV and internet service.

And the problem with that is it probably won't change much because people want more than what comes over the network channels. People want ESPN, CNN, Fox News, Lifetime etc... OTA doesn't offer anything beyond four major networks and reruns. To me that's the biggest failing over-the-air. It seems what's cable stays cable. Just think of how many more people they could reach if they would open there licensing for OTA. But that won't happen because cable companies pay them for the license and earn money from advertising.

For the longest time I didn't cut the cord because my wife liked some of the stuff on cable. We finally cut the cord to save $100 a month because she was only watching TV for one or two hours. Of course I needed my cable news but after the elections, I turned my back on cable news because of all the misinformation and fake news.

So until some better variety comes to OTA, people will continue to use cable, satellite and stream.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top