Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
HDTV Reception Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Topic:
Someone needs to try this UHF antenna!
This thread has 10 replies. Displaying all posts.
Post 1 made on Thursday May 3, 2012 at 01:33
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,683
Look at this puppy:

[Link: wade-antenna.com]



A 12 foot long helical UHF antenna with 21+db gain!

For the less adventurous, also comes in a 5.4 foot long version ([Link: wade-antenna.com]), and in pairs or quads...

Post 2 made on Sunday May 6, 2012 at 21:05
Trunk-Slammer -Supreme
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2003
7,331
Are you using one of them?



I'm using the Channel Master 4228HD and it works well. But the gain is down around 12db average, so it looks like the Wade unit should do a better job.

I could use an antenna that would pull in a station some ninety miles out....
Post 3 made on Monday May 7, 2012 at 01:56
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
29,815
This looks like a killer antenna for distances more than fifty miles if the transmitters are pretty close together, that is, all in the same direction from you.

If the transmitters you want to receive are not all in the same direction, you'd do well to get an antenna with less gain. More gain, in general, means a narrower reception pattern.

Great find!
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
Post 4 made on Monday May 7, 2012 at 09:25
NFASTRO
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2006
130
In general, I am a bit disappointed that there have not been any major breakthroughs in antenna design for television over the last 50 or 60 years. I guess its just physics and funding holding things back. Most new antennas are just re-marketed as HD antennas and some are not much better than rabbit ears with bad amplifiers.
I am comparing antenna progress to the revolution in television technology. From black and white round tv tubes to computerized hd flat screen digital sets today. There are many cm4228 and clones around today but these are just an array of bowties that have been around forever.
Where is the Steve Jobs of antennas to come up with something really innovative. Perhaps we need computerized, intelligent amplifiers mounted at the antenna mast?
Post 5 made on Wednesday May 9, 2012 at 21:37
el gran chico
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2007
148
NFASTRO, check out Antennas Direct. They come out with new designs all the time. The laws of physics aren't being amended though so there's some constraints on what's possible. Most of re-designs are aimed at optimizing channels 7 to 51, and to attract people to OTA by having aesthetically pleasing products.

I've bought 2 AD products now to replace my old Channel Master. Channel Master just seems to be interested in making the same products cheaper (and not pass on the savings to the customer).

http://www.antennasdirect.com/
Post 6 made on Wednesday May 9, 2012 at 23:08
Trunk-Slammer -Supreme
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2003
7,331
In a recent independent test, the Antennas Direct "Clearstream 4" placed well below than the comparable CM4228 in multiple categories....


Nuff said....
Post 7 made on Thursday May 10, 2012 at 18:50
NFASTRO
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2006
130
I have nothing against the CM4228 (I am using it right now) or against many of the newer "HD" antennas that are re-packaged and look sleek for the benfefit of the consumer. Underneath, they all use the same old technology that was around fifty years ago.

My point was that the laws of physics and electromagnetism still rule and no one has been able to make a revolutionary change in antennas to match the progress in tv's or computers. I guess I am waiting for someone to invent some sort of intelligent antenna that can give us ten times the gain of today's antennas.

With regards to the CM4228 and the multitude of clones, I have always wondered why the bowties are all the same length. Should some be constructed longer to receive lower frequencies, and some shorter to enhance higher frequencies? Dimensions and packaging are probably a problem with this design.
Post 8 made on Friday May 11, 2012 at 13:05
el gran chico
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2007
148
On May 9, 2012 at 23:08, Trunk-Slammer -Supreme said...
In a recent independent test, the Antennas Direct "Clearstream 4" placed well below than the comparable CM4228 in multiple categories....

Nuff said....

One review of one antenna and you diss the whole company??

The C5 is pretty radical design for a VHF antenna. I know a number of people in my neighbourhood have installed a DB-4e for UHF. That one has pretty good reviews. It's bowties are different than your standard 4-bays.
Post 9 made on Saturday June 23, 2012 at 03:19
Ernie Gilman
Yes, That Ernie!
Joined:
Posts:
December 2001
29,815
On May 10, 2012 at 18:50, NFASTRO said...
I have nothing against the CM4228 (I am using it right now) or against many of the newer "HD" antennas that are re-packaged and look sleek for the benfefit of the consumer. Underneath, they all use the same old technology that was around fifty years ago.

This is because, as noted, physics is the same. In fact, let me point out that the original meaning of "state of the art" was "well, that's how we're doing it these days." This "old technology" is state of the art from the point of view of that definition and also from the newer point of view that "it's the best thing there is."

My point was that the laws of physics and electromagnetism still rule and no one has been able to make a revolutionary change in antennas to match the progress in tv's or computers.

I'm sorry, but it's just silly to expect that fixed laws of physics regarding frequencies, wavelengths, and electromagnetics will somehow change at the same time that we have gone from tubes to transistors to ICs to high-density ICs; and from tube displays to plasma and LCD. It's like expecting the cup to change from open side up to open side down because man went from the stone age to the modern age. A cup still must be open side up. Antennas follow fixed rules.

I guess I am waiting for someone to invent some sort of intelligent antenna that can give us ten times the gain of today's antennas.

Now, there's an idea: integrate the TV with the antenna and have the TV command mechanical changes to the antenna to optimize the signal!

With regards to the CM4228 and the multitude of clones, I have always wondered why the bowties are all the same length. Should some be constructed longer to receive lower frequencies, and some shorter to enhance higher frequencies? Dimensions and packaging are probably a problem with this design.

People will package whatever works, so no, it's not packaging. My favorite long-distance FM antenna came in an eight foot long box.

If I understand correctly, antennas of any particular length work optimally at one frequency, but they work nearly optimally at nearby frequencies and multiples of the fundamental. I guess this doesn't explain why a bowtie works so well over such a large range of frequencies, though.

As for length, yes, VHF antennas are always longer than UHF. In the ham world, the obvious example is that an 80 meter antenna is bigger than a 2 meter antenna. The AM band has wavelengths from almost 600 meters to about 200 meters... yet we've had antennas that work reasonably well over the entire range.
A good answer is easier with a clear question giving the make and model of everything.
"The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- G. “Bernie” Shaw
OP | Post 10 made on Saturday June 23, 2012 at 23:54
Daniel Tonks
Wrangler of Remotes
Joined:
Posts:
October 1998
28,683
Right now I'm still using my vertical stack of two Televes DAT-75 antennas imported some years ago from the UK. Considering my physical location in a slight valley, I get fairly good long-distance reception.
Post 11 made on Tuesday June 26, 2012 at 20:51
Anthony
Ultimate Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
28,553
On June 23, 2012 at 03:19, Ernie Gilman said...
Now, there's an idea: integrate the TV with the antenna and have the TV command mechanical changes to the antenna to optimize the signal!

they exist Google smart antennas. The issue in the end is that any external antenna feeding multiple tuners can't be pointed in different directions. So the idea never caught on.


PS [Link: en.wikipedia.org]
...


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse