Amplifier for indoor antenna

[Peter Parker]

I use a Terk HDTVi to feedan accuruian HD receiver. Is it likely that any add on amplifier would help me and if so what should I look for.

FWIW get most of the digital locals now but the Fox and My TV duopoly are in the upper 30as to low 40s and the ABC affiliate occasionally pops down to 49.

And yes i know that I should consider an outdoor or attic installation. I am trying to avoid that but may wind up doing it.

 

[dashaund]

Channel Master amps are very good...probably the most favorite. IMO, you really need an outdoor antenna, or alteast an attic one. You wouldn't believe the difference that a properly aligned outdoor antenna makes. However, if you want to try it, I would run down to Radio Shack and get the highest dB antenna amplifier that they carry and hook it up. See if the signals increase enough for you to be happy. If not, I'd get my money back and buy a Channel Master 4228 (I'm pretty sure Lowe's carries them). If not, you can order one online. Definately makes a big difference. In my case, I started picking up stations I didn't even know were there!

 

[bhelms]

I wouldn't start with the highest gain amp! These are clearly designed for deep fringe / last resort situations (like mine, unfortunately) and there are too many compromises associated with them. The highest gain amps almost always have a higher noise figure that will certainly degrade the signals, and in almost all cases you can run into an overload situation. A strong signal can overload the amp and/or the output of a high gain amp will overload your tuner to the extent that all signals will be adversely affected. Unfortunately it's usually very difficult to tell what's happening without some sophisticated equipment. (Is the poor signal I'm getting due to a weak signal, too much noise, multipath interference, or amp/tuner overload, etc.?)

You could try a simple 10dB in-line amp to see if that helps any, and work up from there. The Winegard HDP-269 is a great low-noise preamp with a moderate gain characteristic and great overload immunity, probably the best all-around choice for areas that have some weak signals mixed in with strong ones.

All that said, if you have a weak signal you are definitely better off with an outdoor antenna. The CM4228 is definitely at/near the top of the list (but it does not help you any with low-band VHF channels). NO preamp will help improve a signal that's not really there in the first place...!

 

[Peter Parker]

OK I decided to try an attic mount ofa UHF antenna. on the way hme I stopped by the neighborhood radio Shack for a pair of diplexers and assumed I would find an antenna ater. They had a UHF 75R that has been returned and I got it for $12.00

Well I raised the signal on WJLA by 10 points and I now get WTTG and WDCA as well. I may try a better UHF antenna later but this is good for now. But since two locals intend to go back to VHF I may have issues at that time.

 

[dougruss]

But since two locals intend to go back to VHF I may have issues at that time.

But that's atleast 3 Years away....I wouldn't woory about that !

 

[Peter Parker]

Some of us worry easily. I also just found out we will be getting a digital Channel 2 which really suprised me.

 

[charper1]

UGH; VHF Lo!

 

[Peter Parker]

It is a low power station currently on 49. That alone is intersting since we have a digital 48 and an analog 50. Apparently one can go with less power on 2 but I am not sure it is worth it. But I guess i will find out in 2009.

 

[NightHawk]

A station broadcasting on channel 2 can't use any less power than they could on any other VHF channel and not reduce their coverage area. Add to that the fact that the spectrum from 2 through 4 is very contaminated with noise and it makes it the absolute worst choice. I don't under stand why TV broadcasters accept that assignment unless they have no option.

 

[Peter Parker]

Well several articles dispute that claiming that reduced power consumption is the reason whay some are requesting the VHF Lo band. But I tend to agree that it amkes little sense to opt for a lower channel assignment if potential viewers will not be able to see it.

 

[NightHawk]

Yes your correct, I erred.

It seems for coverage planning pourposes stations do assume the receiving antenna is a dipole cut to frequency. Because low VHF dipoles are larger physically the capture area is bigger and less transmitter power is theoretically required.

In reality most combo antennas eliminate the lowest frequency dipoles for size reasons and hence operate with reduced gain on channels 2 -> 6, further compromising low VHF reception.

 

[Peter Parker]

that sounds right. I have lived in several areas and as a practical matter the lower VHF stations are usually the hardest to receive. I had given up on 4 and 5 for instance.