# Digital TV Antenna Questions



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Since the switch to Digital TV, we've been having problems with our signal on our digital converter box. The funny thing is that before the actual switch, when our area was broadcasting both, the box signal came in twice as strong as it does now that there is only digital. 

We're using the same antenna that we had before there ever was digital TV, the same one we've used for years. It's a huge outdoor affair because of how far we are out in the country. It's mounted on our rooftop. Like I said, it USED to pick up the digital signal just great. Now, however, for the last month or so, the signal is weak enough that our picture/sound is disrupted a lot. We've moved the antenna from one end of the house to the other.......we've rotated it around several times......we can rotate it and get a bit of a stronger signal, and it will stay there for several days or a week,......and then the signal will start going down again.  The antenna will be in the exact place (we mark it) and indeed, when we move the antenna and find a better signal, it's in a completely different place....as if the signal is just wandering around.

Someone suggested that we get a booster. Does anyone know anything about these and how they work? I'm loathe to get a new antenna because I don't think the problem IS the antenna, since it USED to work. We used to get signals in the 70's and now we are lucky if we can keep the signals in the 20's.  We've changed nothing. 

Does anyone have any ideas on what we can try to get a better digital signal? I know NOTHING about these digital TV signals. 

Thanks!


----------



## kenezz6396 (Dec 12, 2012)

The newer smaller antenna's are better "tuned" for the DTV.

You could buy one of these for around $100, but if you you are far away from a singnal you may still need a booster.

A booster is a amplifier. Walmart carries them. a good one is $17 to $25.

I would try this booster first.


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

Hi Laura,

The Bad News - Same problem here and I'm urban area. What was good before the change now sucks. Don't even get some channels that I did before. I don't believe they are still broadcasting the same strength signal as before. The hiccups, freezing and pixelization seem almost constant at times. The good news - there isn't much on TV worth viewing so don't really care.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

I've got two young kids........who really care, lol. And a husband that LOVES drag racing and watches it zealously.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

What kind is it? Is it one of those "Yagi" antennas? Do you have both the old antenna type and one of those UHF add-ons that looks like chicken-wire or something?

If you have the UHF antenna, that is the one best suited for the digital signal. If you disconnect/remove the other part of the antenna and use just the UHF part, pointed toward your station, you'll get much better reception.

Two types of UHF antenna:


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

Still leaves unanswered why the digital signal was better before the official cutoff and sucky afterwards. Other than my belief they are transmitting a weaker signal now than before. Swap 'snow' for 'pixelization' - vast improvement.

It has also affected cable TV signals to a degree. I now get frequent pixelization and dropped signals through the cable reception - which I presume the cable company is just passing the crappy signal on through to users. This is on all my TV's analog (CRT) or digital (LCD).


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Here is a photo of the one we are using now.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Wino said:


> Still leaves unanswered why the digital signal was better before the official cutoff and sucky afterwards. Other than my belief they are transmitting a weaker signal now than before. Swap 'snow' for 'pixelization' - vast improvement.
> 
> It has also affected cable TV signals to a degree. I now get frequent pixelization and dropped signals through the cable reception - which I presume the cable company is just passing the crappy signal on through to users. This is on all my TV's analog (CRT) or digital (LCD).


The broadcasting power of every station is posted and monitored by the FCC, so that information is available to anyone. There have been some, but not many, changes in power since the transition.

I suppose there could have been some sort of synergy between the signals.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

LauraMJ said:


> Here is a photo of the one we are using now.


Is there a splitter to divide UHF from VHF? If there is, remove it and connect to just the UHF. I can't really tell, but it looks like the UHF is the rear part, and the front may be VHF.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

I don't really know what the antenna is. We've had it so long, I've forgotten anything I might have known about it, lol. I've not been up there near it in a long time, but hubby says that there is a splitter of some sort (at least he thinks it is) connected to the antenna, that the coax cable connects to. He says that if he took that thing off, he has no idea how to connect the cable to the antenna, then, because he sees no other way of attaching the cable to the antenna besides that splitter thingy. Other than that, which came with the antenna and is attached to the actual antenna, there is nothing.....the cable hooks directly into the digital converter box.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

There are converters that they sell in most department stores that have the connector for the 75-ohm cable on one end and then usually both wires and screws for attaching wires on the unit itself. They have them in a lot of dollar stores, too. That is what you really need, but just disconnecting the VHF part from the adapter you have now may help with your signal since at least then only the part of the antenna that you are actually using would be connected.

The very best thing to do, if the antenna is in 2 parts, would be to remove the VHF section altogether so that it didn't interfere with the signal for the UHF part. But I can't tell from the picture if they are separable. I just took my monster down and now have just the bare UHF, smaller, and looks better, too.  A lot of people are digging those old UHF antennas out of the attic. Because of that terrible ghosting that UHF used to have, many people just stopped trying to get UHF a long time ago.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Thanks for the information.  We'll have a look at it and see if it comes apart. Any way to tell for sure which is the UHF and which is the VHF? 

What about those digital boosters people have told me about? Would having one of those help any?


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Okay, I found some pictures on Google and it looks like UHF is the back part (on the right of the picture). So you are saying that the UHF part would be the part that would pick up the digital signal the best?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Yes, and they are marked on the connectors for the adapter up there, too.

Yes, those boosters really do help. I'm using the same one I used for analog and it works fine. The very best choice for those is one that is put on the antenna itself and then powered through the normal cable from inside the house. That way, you are not also boosting any interference that the cable picked up along the way. But that is less important with digital and the inside amplifiers would work well, too. There is nothing "digital" or "analog" about the radio waves themselves. They behave the same as they always did. It is only their content that has changed and that is only relevant once the signal gets to the TV. Vendors are taking advantage of this and selling "digital" antennas. There is no such thing. Only antennas optimized for that range of frequencies.

PS. I guess I didn't really answer your question. Yes, the back part, the UHF, is the part that picks up the digital channels range of frequencies the best.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Alright, well, I think our next step is to try a booster, or amplifier, as they seem to be called, and see if that helps. Depending on what that does, we may also take the antenna apart to remove the VHF part. 

Thanks!


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Or just disconnect it. You can test that easily.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Oh, okay. You can see that I have not been the one to actually look at what's up there, lol. I'll tell hubby to look for a way to disconnect just the one part.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi Laura,

Recently, I asked one of the TV technicians at a local station here in Boston about a problem with one of their subsidiary stations on another channel that they broadcast on, and he told me that local politicians have been telling the local TV stations that with DTV they can reduce their power. Normally, with analog TV the power was at about 30,000 watts, and the politicans (House: Congress) are telling them they should be able to lower the power to 3,000 watts - What a crock!

What do politicians know about DTV from a hole-in-the-ground. Someone told them, and they are repeating the wrong information.

Read my web post for information on lots of links to help your understand the problem you are having (aside from Elvandil helpful comments) Post#14.

Also, on AntennaWeb.org you will find the reception distances, etc. of antennas (if you really do need to replace your antenna). Understand first, that if your house is in a valley and not straight line-of-sight from a digital transmission tower, your signal may be hard to pick up. Also, understand that there is NO SUCH THING AS A DTV ANTENNA!

It is likely that part of your problem is a lower power transmission being used by the TV stations - check with them - it should be over 20,000 watts or more up to 50,000 - and not down around less than 10,000.

If power is not a problem, then your location from the transmission tower/antenna combination may also be part of the problem.

Use the tools like Tiny-Geo code and Antenna Web to help you sort out the problem.

Read, read, read - and you will find a solution that fits your need (if not satellite, cable or FiOS).

-- Tom


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Tom,

I had already found AntennaWeb and a couple of the others you mentioned in that other thread, and that along with Elvandil's help and your extra info, I think I've got a bit of a handle on getting this signal improved. I'll have to shop around a bit and talk to some local stores about the amplifiers, and when we get one hooked up, I'll post back and give everyone an update.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

LauraMJ said:


> Okay, I found some pictures on Google and it looks like UHF is the back part (on the right of the picture). So you are saying that the UHF part would be the part that would pick up the digital signal the best?


Uhh... that's the FRONT of the antenna! Is it perhaps pointing the wrong way?


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Back, front, whatever. The right side of the photo.


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

LauraMJ said:


> Here is a photo of the one we are using now.


I think what John is trying to suggest is the left side of your picture is the back of the antenna. The right side of the picture should be pointing towards the source.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

He has a point, though. It points one way if you think of it as an arrow, but if you haven't tried it, point at the source from the other side. I just assumed that you had probably tried it every whichway.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

Yeah, we turned it completely around the spectrum while I watched the little signal meter on the TV.......where it is right now is the ONLY place that it even GETS a signal. And checking it against AntennaWeb, where they give you the compass reading of where it should point to, we've got that end (on the right side of the picture) pointing towards the compass reading.


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

Well, it was worth a try.

I've HD TV for several years now, so I have been battling this stuff for a while. All connections need to be solid, with as few connectors as possible. If you have it going through a surge protector, try bypassing it. Also, if you are into climbing , check the line of sight of the antenna. If a bunch of trees and stuff are getting in the way, that could be a factor. The trees may not have been that tall in the past, but may now be a contributor.

If the line of sight is questionable, you may want to put a taller pole. If you go taller, you might need to beef up the pipe diameter you are using, to give it more strength.

Check all the connectors and see if there is any corrosion; that can start to insulate the signal.


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

Drabdr - all well and good things to check or do, but if it was working before the change, doubt it has anything to do with the problem now. As I stated in earlier post, I'm in the city, have no outdoor antenna, just indoor, which worked well (received ALL but two channels out of 22) on HD until the change. Now lucky to get 10 with any consistency in picture quality. There is no 'line of sight' on any of the three HD TV connections (1-LCD and 2-computers). I still say they have reduced their signal power, and guessing that saves the local broadcasters some money.


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

Wino said:


> Drabdr - all well and good things to check or do, but if it was working before the change, doubt it has anything to do with the problem now. As I stated in earlier post, I'm in the city, have no outdoor antenna, just indoor, which worked well (received ALL but two channels out of 22) on HD until the change. Now lucky to get 10 with any consistency in picture quality. There is no 'line of sight' on any of the three HD TV connections (1-LCD and 2-computers). I still say they have reduced their signal power, and guessing that saves the local broadcasters some money.


Agreed. I don't understand it, though. Essentially all they did was stop broadcasting analog signals. One could go in-line with a wattmeter and measure the signal strength. I'd call the local broadcasting station and ask. 

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

I emailed and asked out local station why it worked well before and not now......they said I would probably need an amplifier and completely ignored the question of why it was a worse signal now than before they stopped the analog.


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

LauraMJ said:


> I emailed and asked out local station why it worked well before and not now......they said I would probably need an amplifier and completely ignored the question of why it was a worse signal now than before they stopped the analog.


This reminds me of many computer manufacturers (particularly IBM old Aptiva's) - the problem is never on their end - you always needed to buy or do something to make it better on you end or it was your fault there was a problem, not theirs. I suspect the problem is at the broadcaster and they will just shift it off on the consumer to go buy antenna's and amplifiers that probably aren't needed if they would just boost their power. Frankly, this change to digital has been a boondoggle from the gitgo IMHO.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

The antenna may not be optimized for digital transmission frequencies.

[WEBQUOTE="http://www.avsforum.com/hdtvfaq/HDTV-FAQ.htm"]
Why is it so hard to receive DTV signals in some locations?

When it comes to digital television, it's an "all or nothing at all" proposition. Once the signal is acquired, a steady stream of data assures you'll get a perfect picture and great audio. If that bitstream is interrupted, however, there will be nothing - just a blank screen. Its as if the signal went over a cliff!

In areas with lots of buildings and multipath, frequent signal dropout causes this "cliff effect". The fix is to use a higher-gain antenna and perhaps even a preamp - assuming the multipath can be tamed. Fortunately, current model set-top DTV receivers are light years ahead of early models in terms of multipath performance.

The key to widespread rollout of digital TV is carriage of local DTV stations on cable TV systems. Today, better than 70% of all US households are getting television via cable or satellite, so you can see how important it is for broadcasters and cable/DSS providers to sign carriage agreements.[/WEBQUOTE]


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

Just had an interesting conversation with an engineer from the one TV stations that used to be good now no good or iffy in response to my email to them. He said they changed from UHF to VHF when they went straight digital as required. They were initially VHF at 17000 (I think he said watts) then kicked it up to 20000 recently (old UHF was 30K). He also said that a lot of the problems are due to FM being on VHF and he said the antenna has trouble sorting out the signals, radio & TV. In any case, he is leaving a VHF filter at their front desk for me to pick up (free) to see if that will help. He also stated that the VHF has more difficulty penetrating walls and obstructions than UHF. He said to call him back if the filter doesn't do the trick. He also told me my RadioShack antenna was a piece of junk (which it wasn't up until the change).


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

That is interesting, Wino. 

I was eating lunch with some guys and brought up the subject. One guy noted something he heard on KRLD radio about one of the local stations. He said they were having to increase wattage output due to pixeling complaints. They had to install a bigger output box or something.

I'm not too bright on RF, but I don't think there is a demand factor. Saying, I don't think increased demand "drains" the existing signal (mere speculation on my part). So... I'm wondering of some of what Tom posted is happening, where they have lowered output.


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

Picked up the FM filter mentioned in above post. No change. Same terrible reception.


----------



## docaudio (Jul 29, 2006)

I would also look at the tuner. I know nothing of the converter boxes, but I have a Mitsubishi DLP HDTV and a Sony Bravia LCD HDTV. Both are fed from the same rooftop antenna, and the Mits (about 3 years older than the Sony) often has trouble getting a good signal, whereas the with the Sony, I have yet to see a problem. 
My worry is that the government subsidized converter boxes got the cheapest tuner chips available.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I'm sure the $40 tuner boxes didn't get the best quality parts.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

There aren't very many that are not "government subsidized". You can still get a more expensive one and get the $40 off. I got 2 $40 ones from Radio Shack that work just fine.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I picked one up, just because I figured I might want to tinker with it or give it to someone. It's still in the box, but I'm thinking about hooking it up to see how it works.


----------



## LauraMJ (Mar 18, 2004)

You can give it to me......my in-laws just gave us a TV so now we have need of another converter.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

LOL. When the government offers to help pay for something, you may as well grab one, for yourself or someone else. I got 2 thinking I only needed one. But both are in use now. 

(Actually, Laura, you are getting advice from at least one person who himself has no TV reception right now. I got a new antenna with a powered, on-board amp, but I can't seem to get any power up there. The cable seems intact, there is power inside, but not on the roof. I must have an internal break somewhere. Probably a whole new cable before I'm done. It's a little discouraging to think that the cable was defective and I could have had much better TV all these years.)


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

Elvandil said:


> (Actually, Laura, you are getting advice from at least one person who himself has no TV reception right now. I got a new antenna with a powered, on-board amp, but I can't seem to get any power up there. The cable seems intact, there is power inside, but not on the roof. I must have an internal break somewhere. Probably a whole new cable before I'm done. It's a little discouraging to think that the cable was defective and I could have had much better TV all these years.)


Wires and cables typically don't go bad. However, if you have had people in the attic who could have stepped on it or something like that, it could generate a problem. Or, if you have rats that can chew on it, that's another matter.

Connectors can cause a problem. You want to be sure that the outside of the connector is firmed touching the outside wire shield.:up:

If you have an ohmmeter, you can disconnect at the antenna and in the house and make sure there is no resistance (between the inside probe and the outside shield). Then if you short those together (on one end, the inside probe and the outside of the connector), you should have some estimated resistance, given the length of wire. But... it should be fairly close to 0.

How do you know you have power up there (I'm assuming on the antenna)?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

No connectors. No frays in the wire. I've followed every inch of it from the basement to the roof. That is what is so mysterious. No shorts, either.

No power on the voltmeter, even though I used to have another powered amp up there that worked, but that was long ago. Something has obviously changed. Same cable, too.


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

Elvandil said:


> No connectors. No frays in the wire. I've followed every inch of it from the basement to the roof. That is what is so mysterious. No shorts, either.
> 
> No power on the voltmeter, even though I used to have another powered amp up there that worked, but that was long ago. Something has obviously changed. Same cable, too.


Have you ohmed it out? That coax cable is not impenetrable. I have seen them get stepped on and stuff and get bent. Just a thought..

If you think it's the cable, you can go two routes (if you're doing it yourself). 1) Measure it out and buy one pre-made at Home Depot or somewhere. They're a little more, but in the end, it's nice not having to crimp the ends. 2) Buy the cable, crimper and crimps to make your own. Not hard to do, but you need to take some time making up the tips, and assuring the shield wire goes into the outside part of the connector effectively.

If you want to do this, just string it on the ground for now. It will let you know if it's the cable.

Oh... on the ends of your existing cable, the inside part should be sticking out the right length. I think it's like 3/4 of an inch or so.

Is any of it going through a surge suppressor? If so, take it out of the loop and see if it makes a difference.
****
A very interesting thread, and I'm glad Laura posted about this. I agree with Wino and the others that I think something is hinky with the transmissions of these signals.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I have all that. I worked for a few years putting in satellite dishes until everyone had one.  No crimpers needed any more (though I have one of the few that are actually good and tough from Radio Shack). Even Comcast uses the instant connectors that are a lot better than the old screw-on ones. 

I already have the cable, but I'm thinking of making some cuts along the way to see if I can narrow down where the problem exists, just out of curiosity.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I have one of the compression crimpers that uses the connectors that Comcast and Verizon uses, they work great and are very easy to get a great waterproof connection job.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Those are tools that most people don't use very often, but are worth their weight in gold when needed. After all, they are cheaper than a Comcast visit (unless it is their fault) or any other repairman you could find to do it for you. I paid almost $40 for my Radio Shack crimper, but here it is 10 years later and 100's of crimps made and it is still like new. I used probably 3 cheap ones before that and broke them..


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I found mine on the web and got 50 RG-6 and 50 RG-59 connectors too, I've worked my way through about 1/2 of them in the three years since I picked it up. It has make it MUCH easier to run cables for me and a number of other people.


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

Elvandil said:


> I have all that. I worked for a few years putting in satellite dishes until everyone had one.


 Well..don't you think that would have been a useful piece of information about three posts back??

Here I am explaining something you can do twice as well as I can. 

I didn't know about the instant connectors. I got one of those heavy duty crimpers that seem to do fairly well.



Elvandil said:


> I already have the cable, but I'm thinking of making some cuts along the way to see if I can narrow down where the problem exists, just out of curiosity.


I was intrigued with this. Do you know you have a cable problem and you're trying to narrow it down, or are you still figuring out if it's the cable?


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I think he pretty well knows it the cable from the description I'm reading.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Drabdr said:


> Well..don't you think that would have been a useful piece of information about three posts back??
> 
> Here I am explaining something you can do twice as well as I can.
> 
> ...


LOL. Well, I appreciate the effort. I guess I should post a CV with the comments?

In any case, with all that has been going on with my house being renovated, I haven't tracked that problem down yet. My plan is to start at the amp and make cuts every 10-20 feet to check for a voltage until I figure out what area is the problem.

I'll let you know how it comes out. It really bugs me, too, but I can't think of any new explanations. The fact that about all I watch are movies on the internet has slowed the effort to fix the wire. And I now have my transmitter for watching those movies on the regular TV's.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Drabdr said:


> Well..don't you think that would have been a useful piece of information about three posts back??
> 
> Here I am explaining something you can do twice as well as I can.
> 
> ...


If you're still curious, I finally tracked down the problem after getting sick of watching TV on the net.

The roof on the house was replaced some 5 years ago. After making a couple cuts in the cable and still getting power, I started checking around the area where the wire went through the roof. I happened to notice a very small white spot on the cable, maybe 2 pin-pricks in size. It looked like maybe a roofing nail had slightly nicked the cable.

When I stripped back some insulation, nothing but white aluminum oxide appeared. The ground had apparently gotten a tiny bit of moisture over the years through that very small hole and was completely gone for about 6 inches inside the cable itself. Never saw anything like this before. Cut out the bad section and TV is crystal clear. It makes me wonder whether my picture could have been better for a very long time.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Good job.


----------



## Drabdr (Nov 26, 2007)

Yes! Thank you for touching base to let us know what you found.:up:


----------



## itsjusme (Aug 19, 2006)

We have the same problems here in fla. My reception was fine before the switch. I sold a friend 50` of tower, he put up a new "digital" antenna.haha He bought a booster, new high quality converter box, all new coax and connectors, he had a fine signal and picked up over 40 channels before the switch. He could even point at Pensecola and pick up several stations there(80-90 miles as the crow and rf fly). Now he barely gets half of those channels and the picture is pixelated and garbled half the time. Fortunately, as someone else said, theres nothing on tv fit to watch now anyway. I think it`s a conspiracy to force everyone to buy new equipment, every politician must have a brother in law in the tv antenna business. LOL


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Don't change that channel: DTV woes still abound.

*Think the digital TV transition is over? Not quite. Many viewers have found that they can't pick up certain stations after the switch, even with the right TVs or converter boxes. The stations are still trying to figure out ways to help them tune in.*

This article explains a lot about the problem, and confirms the reduced power transmission I mentioned in one of my previous posts about the problem in my area.

My current experience is that the stations are still losing pixels at times, and the power display on my DTV remote indicates that it is still too low for good reception even though I have the 50 db boost fully on in my indoor antenna.

Congress should never have mandated the switch to DTV and just should have let the market figure out what was required for a smoother transition. Not the first nor the last time Congress has/will have been duped by its lack of knowledge over what it makes into laws IMHO!

-- Tom


----------



## Wino (Dec 1, 2001)

The article pretty much confirms all that was told me by local TV station engineer (see post #31 in this thread). They have done something to improve their signal as I can now get their station flawlessly. Some others still no good, but I don't watch those channels any time.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

TV still coming in fine over my fiber connection.


----------

