I got this question last week, and I get it about once a month. I answered the same way I always do: “I don’t know, they’re already pretty small.”
It’s a pretty fair question though, since most of us remember when TV antennas were over 6 feet long even if you lived in a suburb fairly near a city. The only way you could get away with a smaller antenna was if you lived right in the city itself. Then, about 20 years ago we started seeing compact antennas that had just as much power as larger ones. Is it too much to hope that we’ll see another revolution in antenna size?
Unfortunately it’s not likely to happen. Two factors combined to make antennas smaller, and unless something really impactful happens, you won’t see a revolution like that again. In fact, more people need large antennas now than needed them just ten years ago. Let’s deep dive into why.
One of the easiest ways to get more signal from an antenna is to amplify it. This doesn’t work perfectly, since (1) you need to actually receive a signal in order to amplify it and (2) since amplifiers can add noise, you need to be able to amplify enough to overcome that noise. The amount of noise you add is especially important with digital signals.
What we’ve seen in the last couple of decades is inexpensive low-noise amplifiers that work well with antennas. This has made it possible to build amplifiers right into the antenna so that there wasn’t really any cable or connector loss, and the amplifier could get the maximum signal to begin with, meaning that it could find more channels to amplify.
Historically, I haven’t been a huge fan of amplified antennas except in fringe areas where the signal could get swallowed up by noise if goes over a long cable. I certainly admit they have their place and they have the potential to give you a better antenna with a smaller footprint. And, it’s hard to ignore the fact that they let people get antennas who might not otherwise consider them.
This is the real reason antennas got smaller. As frequencies go up, wavelengths get shorter, and since the size of an antenna is tied to the size of the wave you want to receive with it, a UHF-only antenna is going to be smaller than a UHF/VHF antenna. One of the goals of the 2009 transition to digital broadcasting was to have as few channels in the VHF band as possible. This was done specifically to allow for smaller antennas.
The broadcast industry couldn’t give up on VHF, for several reasons. A VHF signal will travel further than a UHF signal of the same power. And then there are cases, like Philadelphia’s channel 6, where the owner’s pride and the community’s strong identification with a channel number mean that a change just wasn’t going to happen.
Still, from 2009-2017, there were very few channels in the VHF band and practically none in the VHF-Low band (channels 2-6) where an antenna needs to be well over 6′ wide to do its best work. This means antennas that could be smaller and still do the same job.
If you were really going to make antennas smaller, you’d need to move all TV broadcasting to higher frequencies like the ones used for cell phones. Cell phones have tiny antennas because they pick up higher frequencies, and antennas used for satellite are really tiny — the actual receiving part is behind the white plastic on the front. The rest is just a way to focus the signal.
However, in 2017, the US broadcast industry completed another major shuffle. The frequencies used for all channels over 36 were given to cell companies for 5G. This made sense. More people use cell phones than use TV antennas. And, as someone I respect is fond of saying, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
As a result of that shuffle, and as a result of test broadcasts for the next generation of TV broadcasting, more stations moved into the VHF-High band than had been there before. Some even moved into the VHF-Low band. Generally, those tended to be educational, foreign-language, and other less-mainstream stations. But, let’s not marginalize the people who like those stations. The fact is, you’re more likely to need a larger antenna now than any time in the last 15 years if you want to get all the stations in your market.
So, when you look at those factors, it’s not likely you’ll see another revolution in antenna size. Amplifiers are already really really good, especially for the price, and TV broadcast frequencies aren’t going to change. Unfortunately that means your hopes for a postage-stamp-sized TV antenna that picks up channels from 100 miles are probably going to stay unfulfilled.
On the other hand, you can find the right antenna for your needs today and tomorrow by shopping at Solid Signal. If you’re not sure what you need, call us for a recommendation!! Real antenna techs are ready to take your call at 888-233-7563. Call during East Coast business hours, or just fill out the form below and we’ll get back to you quickly!
The post Will TV antennas ever get smaller? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
It’s a pretty fair question though, since most of us remember when TV antennas were over 6 feet long even if you lived in a suburb fairly near a city. The only way you could get away with a smaller antenna was if you lived right in the city itself. Then, about 20 years ago we started seeing compact antennas that had just as much power as larger ones. Is it too much to hope that we’ll see another revolution in antenna size?
Unfortunately it’s not likely to happen. Two factors combined to make antennas smaller, and unless something really impactful happens, you won’t see a revolution like that again. In fact, more people need large antennas now than needed them just ten years ago. Let’s deep dive into why.
Antennas got smaller because amplifiers got really good.
One of the easiest ways to get more signal from an antenna is to amplify it. This doesn’t work perfectly, since (1) you need to actually receive a signal in order to amplify it and (2) since amplifiers can add noise, you need to be able to amplify enough to overcome that noise. The amount of noise you add is especially important with digital signals.
What we’ve seen in the last couple of decades is inexpensive low-noise amplifiers that work well with antennas. This has made it possible to build amplifiers right into the antenna so that there wasn’t really any cable or connector loss, and the amplifier could get the maximum signal to begin with, meaning that it could find more channels to amplify.
Historically, I haven’t been a huge fan of amplified antennas except in fringe areas where the signal could get swallowed up by noise if goes over a long cable. I certainly admit they have their place and they have the potential to give you a better antenna with a smaller footprint. And, it’s hard to ignore the fact that they let people get antennas who might not otherwise consider them.
Antennas got smaller because, UHF.
This is the real reason antennas got smaller. As frequencies go up, wavelengths get shorter, and since the size of an antenna is tied to the size of the wave you want to receive with it, a UHF-only antenna is going to be smaller than a UHF/VHF antenna. One of the goals of the 2009 transition to digital broadcasting was to have as few channels in the VHF band as possible. This was done specifically to allow for smaller antennas.
The broadcast industry couldn’t give up on VHF, for several reasons. A VHF signal will travel further than a UHF signal of the same power. And then there are cases, like Philadelphia’s channel 6, where the owner’s pride and the community’s strong identification with a channel number mean that a change just wasn’t going to happen.
Still, from 2009-2017, there were very few channels in the VHF band and practically none in the VHF-Low band (channels 2-6) where an antenna needs to be well over 6′ wide to do its best work. This means antennas that could be smaller and still do the same job.
We’ve gone in the opposite direction
If you were really going to make antennas smaller, you’d need to move all TV broadcasting to higher frequencies like the ones used for cell phones. Cell phones have tiny antennas because they pick up higher frequencies, and antennas used for satellite are really tiny — the actual receiving part is behind the white plastic on the front. The rest is just a way to focus the signal.
However, in 2017, the US broadcast industry completed another major shuffle. The frequencies used for all channels over 36 were given to cell companies for 5G. This made sense. More people use cell phones than use TV antennas. And, as someone I respect is fond of saying, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
As a result of that shuffle, and as a result of test broadcasts for the next generation of TV broadcasting, more stations moved into the VHF-High band than had been there before. Some even moved into the VHF-Low band. Generally, those tended to be educational, foreign-language, and other less-mainstream stations. But, let’s not marginalize the people who like those stations. The fact is, you’re more likely to need a larger antenna now than any time in the last 15 years if you want to get all the stations in your market.
So no, antennas aren’t going to get smaller
So, when you look at those factors, it’s not likely you’ll see another revolution in antenna size. Amplifiers are already really really good, especially for the price, and TV broadcast frequencies aren’t going to change. Unfortunately that means your hopes for a postage-stamp-sized TV antenna that picks up channels from 100 miles are probably going to stay unfulfilled.
On the other hand, you can find the right antenna for your needs today and tomorrow by shopping at Solid Signal. If you’re not sure what you need, call us for a recommendation!! Real antenna techs are ready to take your call at 888-233-7563. Call during East Coast business hours, or just fill out the form below and we’ll get back to you quickly!
The post Will TV antennas ever get smaller? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.
Continue reading...
