OTA reception: 35 miles SW from Chicago: should I get a cool, new design antenna or standard antenna?

This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture quality
that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge OTA into
this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of here;
he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a Squareshooter
or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big old antenna" on
my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both advertise getting
50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look "too antennaish" when
installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not think too much about
them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of these antennas, I was
told I would be able to get all local programs excluding channel 2 (too low
in the VHF range). This installer visited my home when I wasn't there, and
essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable box on the outside of my house,
which would allow me to link the new external antenna line to this box,
which already has a run present to where my TV is located. His install
solution involved drilling a hole for the cable through the outside of the
house, through the wall, to where the TV is, using a plate to join the
outside cabling to the cable that will run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both remain
loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA and
Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face, but
typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements like
these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for about
7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with the
picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to clarity.
Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better picture is a
"fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and FM.
It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with this
"traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on the top
of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or go with
either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of the same
channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much less-noticeable
presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might watch
on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either HD DVDs
or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

"Kim Groves" wrote in message
et...
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture
quality that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge
OTA into this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here; he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a
Squareshooter or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big
old antenna" on my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both
advertise getting 50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look
"too antennaish" when installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not
think too much about them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of
these antennas, I was told I would be able to get all local programs
excluding channel 2 (too low in the VHF range). This installer visited my
home when I wasn't there, and essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable
box on the outside of my house, which would allow me to link the new
external antenna line to this box, which already has a run present to
where my TV is located. His install solution involved drilling a hole for
the cable through the outside of the house, through the wall, to where the
TV is, using a plate to join the outside cabling to the cable that will
run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA
and Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face,
but typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements
like these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for
about 7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with
the picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to
clarity. Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better
picture is a "fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and
FM. It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with
this "traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on
the top of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or
go with either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of
the same channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much
less-noticeable presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might
watch on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either
HD DVDs or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

I am 36 miles west in St. Charles Illinois and get all of the analog and
digital channels perfectly with VHF and UHF antennas in the attic (except
channel 2 digital during a thunderstorm because their digital transmitter is
on channel 3 at only 4.4Kw). Note that when the analog shutdown occurs, many
stations will be moving back to their high (=7) VHF channels. OTA HD is
fabulous and you should go for it but be sure to get an antenna that can
receive both the upper VHF and UHF stations. You need an antenna that gets
all stations on VHF and UHF currently.

David

"Kim Groves" wrote:
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of
these options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and
the Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get
locals over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture
quality that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge
OTA into this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here; he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a
Squareshooter or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big
old antenna" on my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both
advertise getting 50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look
"too antennaish" when installed on my roof. You would notice them, but
not think too much about them due to a smaller form factor. Using either
of these antennas, I was told I would be able to get all local programs
excluding channel 2 (too low in the VHF range). This installer visited my
home when I wasn't there, and essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable
box on the outside of my house, which would allow me to link the new
external antenna line to this box, which already has a run present to
where my TV is located. His install solution involved drilling a hole for
the cable through the outside of the house, through the wall, to where
the TV is, using a plate to join the outside cabling to the cable that
will run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA
and Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD
local channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face,
but typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of
facial blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few
elements like these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not
typically evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD
reception for about 7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I
am happy with the picture quality. I just want everything I can get with
respect to clarity. Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a
better picture is a "fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and
FM. It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with
this "traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on
the top of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2,
or go with either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully
all of the same channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a
much less-noticeable presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might
watch on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually,
either HD DVDs or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

First off, don't talk to the first installer again.
He isn't giving you good advice. A Squareshooter will
likely not work well.

The Winegard is going to give you the better results.

Having said this, you may not find a big difference
between ota and the mpeg4 satellite pictures. They
are close. Ota is better, but not that much. The real
advantage you will get with the antenna is more stations.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Just a few comments. I installed my Dish Network system 7 years ago. I had
a previous high gain VHF Yagi and on top of that (by about two feet) I had a
UHF Yagi (all on a rotator). While it lasted for many years, it had too
much wind resistance and blew down late in the 90s. Since I am only about
22 miles from the San Francisco towers I put up a Channel Master 'Stealth'
antenna.which I would describe as a 'batwing' design. It was good enough
but lacking at channel 2 frequencies. I added the optional amplifier. All
this sounds similar to the Winegard hardware.

I then installed the Dish Network hardware and always considered my antenna
system as a backup. I went HDTV last year and plugged in the antenna rig to
the Dish receiver. Everything works great but, quite frankly, I see little
or no difference between the satellite-received signal or the OTA
equivalent. The big advantage to me is the additional station coverage I
receive by way of the OTA antenna. PBS here is Channel 9. The regular
station is identified as 09-00. There are five additional channels for
channel 9; 09-01 through 09-05. All DTV and several of them HDTV (depending
on the source material).

I think you can get good reception from the Winegard hardware as described
but you will probably need the amplification. Good luck.

John

"Kim Groves" wrote in message
et...
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture
quality that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge
OTA into this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here; he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a
Squareshooter or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big
old antenna" on my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both
advertise getting 50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look
"too antennaish" when installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not
think too much about them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of
these antennas, I was told I would be able to get all local programs
excluding channel 2 (too low in the VHF range). This installer visited my
home when I wasn't there, and essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable
box on the outside of my house, which would allow me to link the new
external antenna line to this box, which already has a run present to
where my TV is located. His install solution involved drilling a hole for
the cable through the outside of the house, through the wall, to where the
TV is, using a plate to join the outside cabling to the cable that will
run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA
and Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face,
but typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements
like these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for
about 7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with
the picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to
clarity. Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better
picture is a "fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and
FM. It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with
this "traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on
the top of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or
go with either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of
the same channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much
less-noticeable presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might
watch on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either
HD DVDs or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

On Apr 7, 1:43 pm, "Kim Groves" wrote:
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture quality
that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge OTA into
this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of here;
he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a Squareshooter
or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big old antenna" on
my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both advertise getting
50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look "too antennaish" when
installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not think too much about
them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of these antennas, I was
told I would be able to get all local programs excluding channel 2 (too low
in the VHF range). This installer visited my home when I wasn't there, and
essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable box on the outside of my house,
which would allow me to link the new external antenna line to this box,
which already has a run present to where my TV is located. His install
solution involved drilling a hole for the cable through the outside of the
house, through the wall, to where the TV is, using a plate to join the
outside cabling to the cable that will run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both remain
loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA and
Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face, but
typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements like
these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for about
7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with the
picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to clarity.
Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better picture is a
"fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and FM.
It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with this
"traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on the top
of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or go with
either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of the same
channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much less-noticeable
presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might watch
on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either HD DVDs
or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

The SquareShooter will do everything fine EXCEPT it will be useless
for WBBM-DT. I know this because I use a non- amplified SquareShooter
at 35 miles in LA. For WBBM-DT the 7080 would do much better but
enough to be OK? It would be fine for ch 2 analog but you'll need to
find someone nearby getting WBBM-DT to be sure. With only 4.4 kW
power, the preamp would be a good idea.

Why WBBM decided to screw around with DTV on channel 3 is baffling to
me. I worked at WISC-TV 3 in Madison and sometimes did transmitter
alignments. Trying to get 4.5 MHz flat response on the analog is very
demanding. DTV requires almost 6 MHz of flat response -- even MORE
difficult. Also, lots of impulse noise in lowband VHF from car
ignitions, electric motors like power drills and shavers PLUS the
receive antenna is LARGE to get even mediocre performance. I would
have expected better from them. I did read somewhere that they were
looking into getting a high band VHF channel but I don't know what the
status is.

I vote the 7080 if you want a shot at CBS-DT (which looks great in
LA).

GG

On Apr 7, 4:43 pm, "Kim Groves" wrote:
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture quality
that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge OTA into
this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of here;
he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a Squareshooter
or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big old antenna" on
my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both advertise getting
50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look "too antennaish" when
installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not think too much about
them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of these antennas, I was
told I would be able to get all local programs excluding channel 2 (too low
in the VHF range). This installer visited my home when I wasn't there, and
essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable box on the outside of my house,
which would allow me to link the new external antenna line to this box,
which already has a run present to where my TV is located. His install
solution involved drilling a hole for the cable through the outside of the
house, through the wall, to where the TV is, using a plate to join the
outside cabling to the cable that will run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both remain
loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA and
Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face, but
typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements like
these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for about
7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with the
picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to clarity.
Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better picture is a
"fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and FM.
It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with this
"traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on the top
of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or go with
either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of the same
channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much less-noticeable
presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might watch
on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either HD DVDs
or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

I can't speak to any of the specific antennas you mention, but I just
wanted to put forth that I get my local digital stations using an
unamplified set of rabbit ears I bought at Wal-Mart for $12. I'm 29
miles from the antenna farm from which they originate. I'm in a
ground floor appartment with metal stairs right outside my window. My
point? Not that you should forgoe the rooftop antenna (if I was in a
house or a duplex I would have one in a heartbeat), but that you will
probably have wonderful results with an unamplified rooftop antenna.
I personally don't like amplified antennas unless there is a
particular low power station you just have to have or there is an
exceptionally long cable run from the antenna to your tv. Being that
close to a major city should net you all sorts of interesting (and
free!) OTA programming.

-beaumon

Kim Groves wrote:
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking
for experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one
of these options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower
and the Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I
get locals over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher
quality" that uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have
not yet knowingly seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the
difference in picture quality that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and
I should be able to merge OTA into this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here; he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a
Squareshooter or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a
"big old antenna" on my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped
antennas. Both advertise getting 50 mile reception. Either one would
probably not look "too antennaish" when installed on my roof. You
would notice them, but not think too much about them due to a smaller
form factor. Using either of these antennas, I was told I would be
able to get all local programs excluding channel 2 (too low in the
VHF range). This installer visited my home when I wasn't there, and
essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable box on the outside of my
house, which would allow me to link the new external antenna line to
this box, which already has a run present to where my TV is located.
His install solution involved drilling a hole for the cable through
the outside of the house, through the wall, to where the TV is, using
a plate to join the outside cabling to the cable that will run to the
TV.
Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for
"30+" years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080),
non-amplified. He is adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't
work for this area. He is certain with the "7080", I would get all
the local channels, including channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external
antenna that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality
between OTA and Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the
Satellite HD local channels, but I feel there must be "something
more" in quality to experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on
William Shatner's face, but typically I don't believe I am receiving
the full compliment of facial blemishes I should be viewing with HD
TV. I can pick up a few elements like these periodically, but
"eye-popping" small details are not typically evident. Maybe I am
used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for about 7 months. My
TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with the picture
quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to clarity.
Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better picture
is a "fact". In your experience, do you agree?
Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF,
and FM. It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go
with this "traditional design" antenna, which will appear very
noticeably on the top of my house, and which should guarantee
reception of channel 2, or go with either of the other "newer" design
types, receive hopefully all of the same channels excluding channel
2, but have the "plus" of a much less-noticeable presence on the top
of my roof?
Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system
entirely, watching HD on local channels only, and having everything
else I might watch on a video server (representing archived DVDs and
eventually, either HD DVDs or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

I live in Bolingbrook and I bought an antennea from Radio Shack and put it
in my attic and works great for OTA digital. I don't remember the model but
it is a good sized antennea and the in attic was my preference due to high
winds in my area and other factors.

Good luck, Rich

"Kim Groves" wrote in message
et...
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture
quality that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge
OTA into this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here; he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a
Squareshooter or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big
old antenna" on my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both
advertise getting 50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look
"too antennaish" when installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not
think too much about them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of
these antennas, I was told I would be able to get all local programs
excluding channel 2 (too low in the VHF range). This installer visited my
home when I wasn't there, and essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable
box on the outside of my house, which would allow me to link the new
external antenna line to this box, which already has a run present to
where my TV is located. His install solution involved drilling a hole for
the cable through the outside of the house, through the wall, to where the
TV is, using a plate to join the outside cabling to the cable that will
run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA
and Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face,
but typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements
like these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for
about 7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with
the picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to
clarity. Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better
picture is a "fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and
FM. It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with
this "traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on
the top of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or
go with either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of
the same channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much
less-noticeable presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might
watch on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either
HD DVDs or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer


From:
Subject: OTA reception: 35 miles SW from Chicago: should I get a cool,
new design antenna or standard antenna?
Date: Sunday, April 08, 2007 2:13 AM

On Apr 7, 4:43 pm, "Kim Groves" wrote:
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture
quality
that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge OTA into
this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here;
he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a Squareshooter
or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big old antenna" on
my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both advertise
getting
50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look "too antennaish"
when
installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not think too much about
them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of these antennas, I was
told I would be able to get all local programs excluding channel 2 (too
low
in the VHF range). This installer visited my home when I wasn't there, and
essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable box on the outside of my
house,
which would allow me to link the new external antenna line to this box,
which already has a run present to where my TV is located. His install
solution involved drilling a hole for the cable through the outside of the
house, through the wall, to where the TV is, using a plate to join the
outside cabling to the cable that will run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain
loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA
and
Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face,
but
typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements
like
these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for
about
7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with the
picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to clarity.
Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better picture is a
"fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and
FM.
It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with this
"traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on the top
of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or go with
either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of the
same
channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much
less-noticeable
presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might
watch
on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either HD
DVDs
or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer
I would forget about the first guy. Before spending big bucks, try this
experiment: Put a traditional VHF/UHF antenna in the attic, as high as
possible, and temporarily run the coax down the stairs. Try connecting it
directly to the TV and to the box. See if there is any difference in signal
strength that the TV displays. You will want to see at least 60%. This will
more than likely work if you have a two story house. If not you will have to
go outside, and higher, but 35 miles is not that far. Line of sight from the
Sears Tower to a receiving antenna at 25 feet is probably about 60 miles.

Some TV installers will also have a truck mounted mast and antenna to show
you just what kind of signal you are going to get.

I have never considered drilling holes in the wall a big deal. If you
remove it, you can always replace a piece of baseboard on the inside, and
spackle and paint the outside. If the house is brick or plastic siding, you
might want to come in through the basement. If you need to go to the outside
from the attic, go through the vent opening, or drill a hole in the vent
frame. Also, people have run coax through cold air ducts.

Tam

On Apr 7, 4:43 pm, "Kim Groves" wrote:
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture quality
that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge OTA into
this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of here;
he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a Squareshooter
or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big old antenna" on
my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both advertise getting
50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look "too antennaish" when
installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not think too much about
them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of these antennas, I was
told I would be able to get all local programs excluding channel 2 (too low
in the VHF range). This installer visited my home when I wasn't there, and
essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable box on the outside of my house,
which would allow me to link the new external antenna line to this box,
which already has a run present to where my TV is located. His install
solution involved drilling a hole for the cable through the outside of the
house, through the wall, to where the TV is, using a plate to join the
outside cabling to the cable that will run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both remain
loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA and
Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face, but
typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements like
these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for about
7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with the
picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to clarity.
Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better picture is a
"fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and FM.
It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with this
"traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on the top
of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or go with
either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of the same
channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much less-noticeable
presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might watch
on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either HD DVDs
or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer

If you have a masonry chimney you can mount an antenna to it. If so,
go to Menards for the chimney mounting hardware, and the really big
Philips antenna. Pick up the grounding materials too while you're
there. If they don't have the mounting pole you can get that at
Lowe's. If they're out of antennas you can get an RCA at Home Depot
(usually way up on a high shelf, in a very long box). Aim it towards
the John Hancock building and you should be fine.

If you don't have a sturdy enough chimney, you can buy a roof mounting
kit at Menards. I think you almost have to have a "big 'ol antenna"
because of your distance and the WBBM situation.

I would like to thank everyone who shared an opinion on OTA reception. Your
responses helped me make my decision.
As a form of feedback, I did have a Winegard 7080 antenna installed.
My wife hated it. Too bad, she gave me the go-ahead to do whatever I wanted.
Non HD channels come in much clearer OTA. I tested this while off work
during the spring break. Unfortunantly,
when I ran my comparison, "The View" was the program that continually popped
up. I could clearly tell the benefits of OTA
for non-HD reception, but due to the program itself, I had to end my
experiment rather quickly.
Comparing HD satellite with HD OTA reception: 1080i setting on D* receiver:
not much if any difference.
Yes, Channel 2 didn't come in (I settled for putting the antenna on a 10'
mast v. on top of the house for asthetics reasons).






"Kim Groves" wrote in message
et...
This may end up being a long post... sorry for that, but I am looking for
experienced opinions with OTA reception. I would love to have one of these
options installed in the next few days. Here is my situation:

I live in Plainfield, IL, about 33 miles west from the Sears tower and the
Chicagoland broadcasting system. I have a satellite system, I get locals
over the sat. system, but want to get that "higher quality" that
uncompressed video may contain for HD reception. I have not yet knowingly
seen HD material sent OTA, so I don't know the difference in picture
quality that exists. I have DirecTV's HR20, and I should be able to merge
OTA into this system.

Two installers with different suggestions. Both adamant that they are
correct. Both state they have 20+ years of experience in my area. Both
install and recommend Winegard products.

Installer 1: Hyper guy; knows the area (business is 20 miles south of
here; he reports doing a lot of TV installs). He suggests either a
Squareshooter or a Batwing, because I stated I didn't really want a "big
old antenna" on my roof. Both of his suggestions are amped antennas. Both
advertise getting 50 mile reception. Either one would probably not look
"too antennaish" when installed on my roof. You would notice them, but not
think too much about them due to a smaller form factor. Using either of
these antennas, I was told I would be able to get all local programs
excluding channel 2 (too low in the VHF range). This installer visited my
home when I wasn't there, and essentially overlooked an old Comcast cable
box on the outside of my house, which would allow me to link the new
external antenna line to this box, which already has a run present to
where my TV is located. His install solution involved drilling a hole for
the cable through the outside of the house, through the wall, to where the
TV is, using a plate to join the outside cabling to the cable that will
run to the TV.

Installer 2: Nice guy; installs antennas in the Plainfield area for "30+"
years. He favors a standard Winegard antenna (7080), non-amplified. He is
adamant that the Batwing or Squareshooter won't work for this area. He is
certain with the "7080", I would get all the local channels, including
channel 2.

I am guessing that VHF channels may be channels 2, 5, 7, and 9.

Both installers stated they would install "whatever I want", but both
remain loyal to their suggestions.

Two questions: first, I am hoping that by installing an external antenna
that there really will be a noticeable difference in quality between OTA
and Satellite-compressed HD displays. I really like the Satellite HD local
channels, but I feel there must be "something more" in quality to
experience. I just saw some wrinkly old skin on William Shatner's face,
but typically I don't believe I am receiving the full compliment of facial
blemishes I should be viewing with HD TV. I can pick up a few elements
like these periodically, but "eye-popping" small details are not typically
evident. Maybe I am used to the HD system. I have had HD reception for
about 7 months. My TV is a good one (10 months old), and I am happy with
the picture quality. I just want everything I can get with respect to
clarity. Based on what I have read and heard, OTA supporting a better
picture is a "fact". In your experience, do you agree?

Question 2: The Winegard 7080 is designed to pick up both VHF, UHF, and
FM. It should be better at reception. Is it a better option to go with
this "traditional design" antenna, which will appear very noticeably on
the top of my house, and which should guarantee reception of channel 2, or
go with either of the other "newer" design types, receive hopefully all of
the same channels excluding channel 2, but have the "plus" of a much
less-noticeable presence on the top of my roof?

Down the road, I could easily see dropping the satellite system entirely,
watching HD on local channels only, and having everything else I might
watch on a video server (representing archived DVDs and eventually, either
HD DVDs or Blue Ray DVDs).

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for any suggestions.

Kimmer