Category: Product Reviews
Useful Gadgets: TERK Omni and Turbo Indoor DTV Antennas
- Published on Monday, 17 April 2017 18:21
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
I have to give Terk credit for continuing to roll out innovative designs for indoor and outdoor TV antennas. Going all the way back to 1998, when I tested my first Terk design, there have been some pretty interesting-looking products in their line (not to mention some strange ones, too!).
Unfortunately, the performance of these antennas hasn’t always matched up to their looks, and the new Omni and Turbo indoor models aren’t breaking that mold any time soon. The bar that any indoor TV antenna must overcome is pretty high: They must have gain at the specific frequencies; enough of it to overcome multipath distortion and echoes – a given indoors – and also to provide a sufficiently-high signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio so that reception is free of drop-outs.
The Omni (model OMNITWR, no price yet) is a black plastic tower that stands about a foot tall and has a blue LED illuminating ring on the bottom. Terk calls this an “amplified multi-directional HDTV antenna” which “receives 4K Ultra HD Broadcast” (never mind that there aren’t any yet) and “Supports 1080p.” The packaging goes on to promote free HDTV from the familiar networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, CW, PBS, and Univision) and proclaims it is “a great compliment to streaming players.”
Well, Terk and I agree on that last point, at least. Free off-air digital TV is a great compliment to streaming channels. If you can get CBS off-air, why pay $8 a month for it? For sports fans, there are still quite a few marquee events that are broadcast on free channels, and for ‘retro’ fans, more and more secondary minor channels like Antenna TV, Comet, and MeTV are full of classic old TV shows (many in thrilling black and white!) from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and even the 1980s.
As for Terk’s other claims; antennas pull in RF signals, such as TV channels. Those channels can carry digital information in the ATSC format in the U.S. or in the DVB format used elsewhere in the world. The demodulated broadcast signal can be standard definition (480i) or HD (720p and 1080i). It’s the TV that demodulates the signal, NOT the antenna – all the latter does is receive the RF channel.
So technically, the Omni (and any other indoor or outdoor antenna, for that matter) can receive 4K broadcasts. They could also receive 1080p HD broadcasts, although that format isn’t used by any television station. Yes, the $4.99 bow-tie antenna I use in all of my tests could also receive a 4K broadcast! (How’s that for mixing contemporary with retro?)
Terk’s Trinity Xtend Turbo antenna (Model WITRIAC, $129.99) is another indoor antenna design that is shaped like a book. You can lay it flat or mount in vertically for TV reception. But it does double duty as a WiFi extender, working with dual-band (2.4 and 5 GHz) systems that use the 802.11ac channel-bonding protocol. So you can watch TV and extend your WiFi range, too!
The shipping box touts “802.11ac up to 3X faster than 802.11an.” Well, that should be the case, as you can bond two, three, and even four channels in the 5 GHz band to increase data speeds, but that’s a WiFi protocol not related to DTV reception. As before, Terk claims this antenna will receive 4K broadcasts and supports 1080p, and we don’t need to go down that road again.
But there’s one additional claim that was hard to swallow: A reception range of 65 miles, which would be some manipulation of the laws of physics for such a small antenna! I’m hard-pressed to receive signals that far away using a combination 5-element VHF and 15-element UHF antenna system equipped with a 24 dB mast-mounted preamplifier. But I suppose it’s possible that reception over that distance might be possible if (1) you lived on a mountaintop with a long view to the horizon, (b) happened to be watching UHF TV channels during a tropospheric ducting event, or (c) were watching terrestrial TV on the international space station.
ON THE TEST BENCH
All’s fair in love and war, so I decided to test both antennas against my reference bow tie antenna. There’s a sweet spot in my 2nd floor home office where DTV signals from Philadelphia are strong enough to be captured with an indoor antenna, so I ‘borrowed’ my cat’s elevated perch and use that to support all of the antennas. Just for fun, I dusted off an amplified Mohu Leaf to compare tests, and to provide a bit more ‘kick’ to the bow tie, I pulled out the Antennas Direct ClearStream JUICE preamp so that all antennas were playing on a more level field.
Each antenna was placed in the ‘nest’ and aimed for best-looking waveforms on a spectrum analyzer. Then, I scanned up and down the band to find which channels were received reliably, i.e. that is for at least a minute with no dropout. In the Philly market, we’ve got a couple of low-band VHF stations, a few high-band VHF broadcasters, and more than a few UHF signals that should be easily received.
Table 1 shows the results. I was quite surprised by how well the bow tie performed, but perhaps I shouldn’t be. This classic design more than holds its own repeatedly in tests against more expensive models with gimmicky packaging, and it’s over 60 years old. With the JUICE preamp, it pulled in eight out of ten stations, missing WBPH-9 and WTXF-42. (None of the antennas could help Fox’s signal, despite it looking pretty clean and strong on my analyzer.)
2nd place went to the UHF bow tie without the preamp, which hauled in seven stations. Not bad for $4.99! Mohu’s time-tested Leaf with external amplifier was right behind, providing reliable reception of six out of ten stations. Terk’s Omni was not up to the task even after I tried a second position for it, pulling in four out of ten stations the first time around and three of ten on the second try. In its defense, it did snag WLVT-39 from Allentown, which only the amplified bow tie could match.
As for the Trinity Xtend? Best to use it as a WiFi extender and forget about DTV reception altogether, unless you live very, very close to the transmitters. No matter which way I oriented it – vertically or horizontally – it could only pull in two stations reliably (WYBE-35 and WFMZ-46) and neither of them is affiliated with a major network. (So much for the claim of 65-mile reception.) My location is around 25 miles from the Roxborough TV towers and has moderate multipath, but not so much that the average indoor antenna can’t pull in at least five stations.
As for the WiFi extender part; it works quite well. I downloaded the Terk Extender app from Google Play and it didn’t take long to make the connection while following the app’s instructions, boosting 5 GHz signal strength by a few decibels in the farthest parts of my house. So you may still find that part of the product useful if you are strapped for range.
As you’ve seen in previous tests, there are some really good indoor antennas for sale that won’t break the bank. Winegard and Mohu both offer indoor panel antennas (passive and amplified) that should pull in the majority of stations in your area if you are no more than 30 miles from the TV transmitters. Radio Shack doesn’t sell UHF bow ties anymore, but Amazon shows the ANTOP amplified bow tie for about $28 – a little pricey in my book, but having the amplifier is a plus.
There’s a catch, though. The recent FCC spectrum auction just concluded and it appears that all UHF channels above 38 will be re-allocated for other uses. This means there are plenty of TV stations that will have to relocate, and some of them will wind up in the noisy, harder-to-receive low-band VHF channels from 54 to 87 MHz. Antennas must have more and longer elements to work at these frequencies, so super-compact designs aren’t going to cut it in the future.
With that in mind, I can’t recommend either of the Terk models for indoor reception – not when a five-dollar piece of bent wire can outperform both of them. Oh well; better luck next time…
USEFUL GADGETS: Three Antennas and a Preamplifier for Cord-Cutters
- Published on Tuesday, 05 May 2015 12:59
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
The cord-cutting landscape has changed considerably in the past twelve months, and it’s no longer a fad, but a growing trend as more and more consumers decide that they can get by just fine without expensive pay TV channel packages.
In fact, Comcast reported yesterday that they now have more subscribers for broadband service than for pay TV channels, which accords greater importance to Comcast’s failure to acquire Time Warner: The combined companies would have controlled broadband distribution to a disproportionate number of U.S. homes.
While Internet service is the key part of cord-cutting, free over-the-air television still pays an important part. Think of the Super Bowl, the NHL Stanley Cup and NBA championships, and the NCAA Final Four championship game.
But there’s also a lot of good programming on free TV right now. In recent months, my wife and I have used our Channel Master DVR+ and TiVo HD to time-shift and watch The Blacklist, American Crime, Brooklyn 9-9, The Good Wife, 60 Minutes, American Odyssey, CSI, Blackish, Saturday Night Live, and Mr. Selfridge (plus a host of one-time PBS programs).
Throw in some Netflix streaming (House of Cards) and there’s plenty to watch without Big Cable. So a balanced cord-cutting approach should incorporate both broadband and terrestrial broadcast TV.
To get the former, you need a fast Internet connection and a late-model Wi-Fi router. To get the latter, you only need some sort of antenna to connect to your television or receiver/DVR, like the Channel Master box, TiVo’s Roamio, Tablo, or Mohu’s new Channels product.
Blessed with a few days of nice weather, I decided to excavate my pile of review products and found three antennas patiently waiting for testing. The first was a rather odd-looking design from HD Frequency, called the CC Aerowave ($49 with 12’ cable from www.hdfrequency.com). It resembles a small window with a 75-ohm coaxial balun attached to the inner corners of two panes.
The second antenna came all the way from Australia and goes by the name HD Quad ($39.99 from www.hd-quad.com). It’s a flexible, transparent antenna with UHF collinear elements, not unlike many other antennas I’ve tested.
The last antenna is a bit larger and is a six-element VHF/UHF yagi, and comes from Channel Master. The StealthTenna 50 (CM3010HD, $29.00 from www.channelmaster.com) can be mounted indoors or outdoors. It’s small enough to sit in a closet or attic space, or even in a room – think of it as functional art.
I also found a new inline signal preamplifier from Antennas Direct. The Juice UHF/VHF Amplifier ($79.99 from www.antennasdirect.com) can be used inside or outside and provides about 18 dB of signal boost with a low noise figure, which is real handy in areas where TV reception can be problematic. (Successful digital TV reception is all about signal-to-noise ratio!)
For this round of testing, I dusted off my tried-and-true UHF bowtie antenna, once available from Radio Shack but largely ignored by retailers today. (Seriously – how many of them want to sell a $5 TV product?)
I set the bowtie up on a folding table in my home office and attached it to a large cardboard box with masking tape. While that part of the test was decidedly low-tech, I then connected the antenna lead into a two-way splitter, with one leg going to a spectrum analyzer and the other going to a Hauppauge Aero-M USB tuner, connected to my Toshiba laptop.
This arrangement allowed me to see the actual waveform and signal strength of each TV station under test. I could then verify successful reception with the Aero-M, and to close the deal, look at the actual MPEG-2 video stream from each station using TS Reader. These three measurements gave me a very concise report on the performance of each antenna.
If you go back to my last round of testing in November of 2014, you’ll see that I used the same antenna position (different box, though!) and same test gear. The only possible differences in testing would come from the amount of foliage on nearby trees, as my house is partially blocked from the Philadelphia/Roxborough antenna towers over a20+ mile path. (In other words, an ideal site for indoor TV antenna testing!)
The Philadelphia TV market is unique in that it has two high-power, low-band VHF TV stations – KJWP (IND) on channel 2, and WPVI (ABC) on channel 6. There are only 40 or so low-band DTVs in operation nowadays as that part of the RF spectrum is susceptible to impulse noise and strange propagation enhancement. Antennas that work well from channels 2 through 6 (about 54 to 88 MHz) are also very large – a half-wavelength dipole for channel 6 needs to be about 68 inches long!
There’s also one high-band VHF operation on channel 12, WHYY (PBS). The rest of the Philly DTV stations are active on the UHF band, starting at channel 17 (WPHL) and ending at channel 42 (WTXF (FOX)). In addition, I can easily pick up three DTV stations from the Allentown area: WBPH-9, WLVT-39 (PBS), and WFMZ-46 (IND). There’s even a repeater for WTXF on channel 38 that shows up on my home antenna array, plus WNJT-43 in Trenton.
I picked a handful of stations to verify reception: WPVI-6, WBPH-9, WHYY-12, WPHL-17, KYW-26 (CBS), WUVP-29 (UNI), WCAU-34 (NBC), WYBE-35 (IND), WLVT-39, WTXF-42, and WFMZ-46. Any of these antennas would be doing an outstanding job if they grabbed all of these stations, as their signal levels vary widely and there’s about 113 degrees directional offset between the Roxborough and Allentown antenna towers.
The first measurements were made with the bowtie, but unamplified and with the Juice amplifier connected. I then repeated these measurements with the HD Quad, CC Aerowave, and StealthTenna 50; again, unamplified and amplified. (I’ll have separate comments at the end of this article on the performance of the Juice amplifier.)
Perhaps the toughest signal to pull in is WPVI on channel 6. Two of the review antennas aren’t really designed for low-band VHF reception, but WPVI runs quite a bit of power and manages to get picked up by brute force on many antennas. (None of the test antennas could pull in KJWP-2 reliably). The rest of the stations aren’t quite as challenging to pull in.
Table 1 shows the results of my tests. Amplifiers do make a big difference, and helped the lowly bowtie antenna and StealthTenna 50 capture first place with 9 out of 11 stations received reliably (i.e. no drop-outs for at least a full minute). To be fair, the StealthTenna 50 is a much larger, directional antenna than the CC Aerowave and HD Quad, both of which should behave like dipoles with classic figure-8 patterns.
Table 2 ranks the antennas by performance. The bowtie by itself wound up in a three-way tie for second place with the amplified HD Quad and bare-bones StealthTenna 50, grabbing 8 out of 11 signals. Following behind was the amplified CC Aerowave, having received 7 out of 11 stations successfully and the bare-bones HD Quad with 6 out of 11 stations.
The Aerowave was a puzzler. By itself, it only received one station – WFMZ on channel 46. I experimented with laying it flat and orienting it at right-angles to the Roxborough antenna farm to try and improve reception, and oddly enough, both of these alignments were more successful than simply positioning the antenna with its face in the correct compass heading. Lying flat, it picked up 4 of 11 stations successfully, while angled at 90 degrees, it grabbed 6 of 11.
The literature supplied with the Aerowave says you can “position the antenna in any desired location,” but based on my results, you may be futzing with it for a while to get the best reception – something I didn’t have any problems with when using the Mohu Leaf, Ultimate, and Winegard FlatWave antennas last November.
ADDING SOME JUICE
Antenna Direct’s Juice amplifier worked much better than expected. Its specifications call for 17.5 dB of gain on VHF channels and 19 dB of gain on UHF channels. (10 dB = 10 times the signal strength, with each 3 dB in gain doubling the previous signal level.) The amplifier’s noise figure was specified as below 2 dB in the VHF bands and below 3 dB in the UHF bands.
In my tests, the Juice boosted WPVI’s signal on channel 6 by about 15 dB and raised the noise floor from about -87 dBm to -85 dBm – or 2 dB, as the specifications claim. All amplifiers generate noise, and a good design will keep that to a minimum to avoid spurious signals and interference to desired signals. (Cheap amplifiers won’t!) Performance was comparable on channels 9, 12, and even 17, where I saw signal levels increase by about 18 dB.
At the high end of the UHF band, I saw an improvement of 20 dB with an increase in noise figure of about 2.5 dB, using WFMZ’s powerful signal on channel 46 for testing. That’s excellent performance for a UHF amplifier and rivals that of the Channel Master Titan-series mast-mounted amplifiers I’ve been using for years. (Titan 2 VHF/UHF 16 dB $65.00, Titan 2 VHF/UHF 30 dB $69, both available from www.channelmaster.com)
I don’t have any data on the Juice’s resistance to intermodulation signal distortion (or overloading from very strong in-band and adjacent-band signals), other than to say that the dozens of very strong FM radio carriers that also broadcast from Roxborough didn’t create any reception issues for me with channel 6 when the amplifier was inline.
It is amazing how little antenna you need to achieve indoor TV reception. My location is sub-optimal in this regard, given my distance to Roxborough and the number of obstructions in my path.
Yet, with just a $5 bowtie antenna, I was able to receive eight TV stations reliably (5 from Philadelphia and 3 from Allentown), including all major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and PBS). Adding the Juice amplifier brought in one more station, and probably fiddling with the bowtie position would have captured the remaining two on my list.
Channel Master’s StealthTenna 50 isn’t exactly small, but you can put it in tight locations indoors for reception, such as a townhouse attic. You can even install it on top of a shelf, or in a closet, and with an amplifier, it will do an excellent job – just use one of the many TV reception Web sites (TVFool.com is the best) to determine the compass heading and where to aim your antenna.
The HD Quad behaves like many other collinear antenna designs I’ve tested. It’s transparent, so you can hang it in a window, and it is a better performer on UHF channels than on VHF. Add an amplifier to it and you may grab a few more channels. One bonus – you can roll it up and take it with you on trips, as I often do. Hook it up to a USB tuner stick and you can watch local HDTV on your computer in hotel rooms.
The CC Aerowave was, to put it mildly, a disappointment. I even tried moving it to different locations, using the spectrum analyzer to peak the signal and see if I could improve those reception numbers. No dice! Some signals that wouldn’t come in at all were now just intermittent with frequent dropouts and frozen images. Adding the Juice amplifier didn’t help much, so I can’t recommend this antenna.
Finally, Antennas Direct’s Juice amplifier is a solid performer and delivers the goods. A noise figure approaching 2 dB in the UHF TV band is excellent performance for the price. There is a puzzler, though – although this amplifier is obviously weatherized, it doesn’t come with a mounting bracket for installation on a mast, which is the best place to out it to overcome signal loss and noise in the antenna downlead. Something for the AD folks to figure out…
Antennas, Antennas, On The Wall…Who Has The Best Reception Of Them All?
- Published on Wednesday, 05 November 2014 19:53
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
It’s been a L-O-N-G time since I conducted tests of indoor TV antennas. More than a year and a half, to be exact. Yet during that time, various samples have been showing up at my door to be added to the “eventually get around to it” pile in my lab.
Well, I eventually DID get around to it. Some downtime this week gave me the motivation to haul out all of those production samples, set up my spectrum analyzer, and also give Channel Master’s new DVR+ ATSC receiver/DVR a workout.
Unlike my past tests, which took place mostly in northern New Jersey, I opted to stay at home this time and give each of the contenders a shakeout in my upstairs office. Indoor DTV reception at my house is by no means easy – my location is over 20 miles from the Philadelphia (Roxborough) TV towers, and according to TVFool.com, I have a 2-Edge path, meaning there are some hills in the way.
Still, there’s enough RF coming into the room to make this test worthwhile. And my timing couldn’t be better, as numerous research reports and news stories show that, slowly but surely, an increasing number of homes are “cutting the cord” and using a combination of free, over-the-air TV with Internet streaming to get their daily fix of video.
A recent report by The Diffusion Group shows that 14% of all broadband homes don’t subscribe to pay TV, up from 9% in 2011. The report states that about 75% of U.S. households now have broadband service, so that means 13 million homes are doing just fine without the likes of DirecTV and Comcast.
Significantly, 2013 was the first year that pay TV companies saw a net loss of subscribers, even though it was only several tens of thousands. But that result flew in the face of experienced analysts who predicted only a few years earlier that consumers would never give up on cable and satellite television subscriptions.
Funny thing about that: At some point, the monthly cost of pay TV channel packages got so high that people reached their breaking point and said, “Enough!” It’s no surprise that Netflix has more subscribers than Comcast, Time-Warner, or any other MSO (50 million and growing in the U.S.). And it’s even less of a surprise that HBO and CBS announced video streaming services last month to reach cord-cutters: They’ve clearly read the writing on the wall.
While those stories are compelling, they’re beyond the scope of this review. So let’s refocus on the task at hand, which is to determine how well each of the test antennas performed with the DVR+.
Mohu, who has developed some pretty clever antenna designs, sent along their Leaf Metro ($24.99) several months ago. This compact package bears a remarkable resemblance to the trusty UHF bow-tie antenna that decorated so many old tube TVs back in the day, and which was eventually dropped from most product lines because (a) it was too inexpensive, and (b) it didn’t look cool enough.
Mohu’s Leaf Ultimate ($69.99, now called the Leaf 50) has also been sitting on the shelf for a while, and I did hook it up for one of my previous antenna tests. Unlike the Metro, the Leaf 50 is an amplified design and uses an external preamp cartridge that installs in-line and uses either USB power from your TV or a supplied wall transformer.
Rounding out the Mohu triumvirate is the Curve 30 ($49.99), another rectangular-shaped flat antenna that sits on a shelf with a supporting bracket. It doesn’t use an amplifier and is intended for close-in (30 miles or less) operation.
From Antennas Direct, we have the ClearStream Eclipse ($59.99) with inline amplifier. It’s not much more than a tapered loop, but what’s unique about this design is the adhesive attached to the front of the loop: Simply peel off the protective backing and stick it on a window. Or wall. (Or an annoying relative who’s fallen asleep on the couch.)
From Winegard, we have the FlatWave Amped ($64.99), a flexible multi-band antenna with preamplifier embedded in the housing, right where the mini coax attaches. Like the Leaf 50, the FlatWave Amped can be attached to just about any non-metallic surface or just hung on a wall.
Finally, just for fun, I threw in an RCA ANT1050 ($12.99) that I had replaced with a Mohu Leaf earlier this year for a friend’s sports collectibles store. This is a strange-looking design, but is basically a pair of folded dipoles in a flexible plastic housing that you can attach to just about any surface.
And for even more fun, I dug up one of my trusty UHF bowtie antennas to use as a “control” for all of my tests. When Radio Shack used to sell these, they cost all of $3.99 a pop. And therein lies the problem – there’s just no money to be made selling these anymore; not when you can get ten times that amount of money for a flexible antenna design.
For this test, I went with a simple but reliable methodology: I set up the bow tie antenna on a small table, in a spot where my spectrum analyzer indicated good signal levels on VHF and UHF. The feed from the bow tie went to a two-way splitter, and two identical 10’ lengths of RG-6 connected from there to the DVR+ and to my analyzer.
After running a channel scan on the CM DVR+, I “looked” at each received channel with the analyzer (and captured numerous screens as JPEGs for reference). Then, I switched the antenna feed over from the analyzer to my Hauppauge Aero-M receiver (plugged into my laptop) and used TS Reader to look at the MPEG stream from each station that was successfully received. If I saw nothing but green bars and a low bit error rate (BER), the station was logged under the “Yes” column. If I saw tiling or signal break-up, it was logged as “Int” for intermittent. And if the station didn’t come in at all, or only briefly, it was pushed to the “No” column.
After testing the bow tie, I repeated this procedure for each review antenna. The Curve antenna used its own support in the same test location, but all other antennas were attached with masking tape to a cardboard box to hold them in place in the “sweet spot.” Not elegant, but effective. (I didn’t remove the adhesive from the ClearStream Eclipse.)
This was about as fair as I could make the test. No antenna was positioned in a more favorable location than any other antenna – I just picked a spot, attached or stood up each antenna, connected it, and tried to watch TV stations, just like the average person would at home. Except they wouldn’t have had the advantage of an analyzer to find the best place to set up.
After logging plenty of transport streams, switching through channels, and grabbing analyzer screens, I came up with the results shown in Table 1. Depending on where you live in the metro Philadelphia area, there are 16 to 18 separate digital TV stations that can be received indoors. Three of them are in the Allentown/Bethlehem area, and one (WNJT) is in Trenton, NJ.
Amazingly, I found 11 stations that were consistently strong with most models – not all – and decided to use those for my test: WPVI-6 (in the no-man’s land of low-band VHF), WBPH-9 and WHYY-12, WPHL-17, KYW-26, WUVP-29, WCAU-34, WYBE-35, WLVT-39, WTXF-42, and WFMZ-46. WBPH-9, WLVT-39, and WFMZ-46 are all up in Allentown, and the rest of the signals come off the Roxborough towers. (Note that the channel numbers given are for each station’s physical (RF) channel, NOT their virtual channel. For example, KYW uses channel 3, while WTXF uses channel 29 and WFMZ uses channel 69. )
A few other stations popped up briefly during scans, but none of the antennas could pull any of these in consistently. I left them out of the test. Even the DVR+ was able to read and capture some elementary PSIP information for these stations, like their virtual channel table (VCT) and call sign. But capturing basic PSIP information doesn’t mean reception was successful.
The most surprising thing I learned from this round of tests was that the cheapest antenna – the bow tie – was also the most reliable. This design was really intended for reception of UHF stations and was intended to clip on to an extended rabbit ear. Yet, it pulled in ten of the eleven test stations without a hitch, having trouble only with WPVI on channel 6. That’s not a surprise at all, given how inefficient a bow tie would be at 86 MHz! (And it was only $3.99!)
There was a two-way tie for 2nd place between the Leaf 50 and FlatWave Amped. Again, not a surprise – both of these antennas have fundamentally good designs based on collinear elements, and their built-in preamplifiers raised signal levels sufficiently to provide a strong signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio. That’s critical for DTV reception, especially with multipath! The Achilles Heel for both antennas was VHF reception; specifically, WPVI-6 and WBPH-9. Channel 12 locked up beautifully as did all of the UHF stations.
The Leaf Metro, which physically resembles a bow tie, came in third with eight stations received successfully and three intermittently. Oddly, those three stations were WBPH-9, WUVP-29, and WTXF-42; it wasn’t an either/or VHF/UHF thing. Maybe some more futzing around with antenna placement would have cleaned things up. But you can’t complain for $30 with this model.
The ClearStream Eclipse and the RCA ANT1050 were both disappointments. Each antenna only pulled in seven solid signals, all in the UHF band. Channel 6 was a no-show on the ANT1050 and troublesome on the Eclipse, and vice-versa for channel 9. The Eclipse, even with an amplifier, couldn’t handle channel 12, but the ANT1050 was happy with it. However, the ANT1050 couldn’t lock up WCAU’s NBC signal on channel 34 (ironic, considering what was once RCA used to own what was once NBC!).
The Mohu Curve, bringing up the rear, was to be truthful kind of a flop. It only snagged five stations successfully – two on VHF and three on UHF – while passing on some easy, strong channels like WPHL-17 and WCAU-34. It also had trouble with WPVI’s broadcast on channel 6.
Again, it might take some futzing around to improve reception with this model, which is probably better used within a 10-to-15-mile-radius around the TV towers and not 15+ miles away. This isn’t the first time I’ve tested a decorative or camouflaged antenna – RCA had a curved picture frame model about ten years ago – and they usually come up short for some odd reason.
OK, everyone can stop nagging me now. I tested every antenna I could find, save for an Australian model that must have come in some time ago and had a PAL-type RF connector for which I had no appropriate adapter. Most of these antennas deliver the goods: I’ve always been a big fan of the basic Mohu Leaf design, despite its lack of gain at VHF frequencies. It’s unobtrusive and works very well.
Winegard’s FlatWave, the answer to the Leaf, also pulls its weight. Both it and the Leaf scored highly in my last test of indoor antennas in March of 2013. (Wow, was it REALLY that long ago?) And things only got better with the amplified versions of each model. I didn’t see a significant degradation of the noise floor here when they were switched on (< 2 dB) and they made a difference on the weaker signals. Use either of these if you are 15 – 30 miles out from the TV transmitters and have a reasonably clear reception path, i.e. maybe a small hill or some buildings in the way.
The Metro has everything – good performance in a small, inexpensive package. I’d recommend this one for city dwellers, and you shouldn’t need any additional amplification. Closer to the transmitter, it should pick up low-band VHF stations nicely, but since there are only about 45 of them in the entire country, that’s not a big issue for the average user.
I can’t recommend any of the last three models, given how many strong stations they couldn’t pull in. The Curve is best used by city dwellers or close-in suburbs, but only if you want to make a fashion statement. Otherwise, go with the Metro and stick it on the wall or in a window. The ANT1050 is certainly cheap, but missed too many easy stations. And the Eclipse is clearly challenged with low-band and high-band VHF reception.
Still, isn’t it amazing how well the bow tie antenna worked? If you can’t find one at a flea market or surplus store, you can make your own easily enough – there are several Web sites that show you how to do it. And your cash outlay will be minimal. Gosh, $3.99 won’t even buy you a tall coffee at Starbucks these days…
CONCLUSIONS: CHANNEL MASTER DVR+
This product isn’t getting as much attention as it should. The super-flat DVR+ (not much thicker than a Leaf or FlatWave) has a full ATSC receiver and dual DVRs. It uses the program guide transmitted by each digital TV station to show you what’s on and to set up recordings.
Two accessory USB ports are provided for a Wi-Fi adapter and external storage (internal storage of 16 GB amounts to only about 2 hours of recording). There’s also an RJ-45 port for wired Ethernet connections, helpful when your box does a software update. The connection to your TV is through HDMI with embedded audio, and a separate optical port is provided for AV receivers.
The DVR+ isn’t nearly as fast at scanning for channels as the LG 47” TV I have in the same room, but it eventually finds them all. The receiver locks up quickly on clean VSB signals, making it a perfect receiver for my antenna tests. CM has also included direct connections to Vudu and Pandora through their program guide (powered by Rovi!), although Netflix probably would have been a wise addition considering their streaming video market dominance.
I’ve used the DVR+ to record blocks of CBS programs whose schedules are thrown out of whack by late-starting Sunday NFL games that end somewhere in the vicinity of 8 PM EST, and its multi-speed fast-forward/reverse search works quite well, even if it doesn’t have the tactile feedback of a TiVo DVR. Of course, the DVR+ is a LOT cheaper at $250 and there’s no monthly fee for program guide information, as it comes automatically from each TV station.
Given the paucity of conventional set-top boxes for off-air reception, this is one of your better choices and sure beats watching HDTV on your phone, tablet, or computer. Let’s face it; Tom Brady’s Patriots vs. Payton Manning’s Broncos is a lot more compelling on a big screen TV than an iPad!
See you next time I get a pile of antennas…
Editor’s note: Channel Master also offers a 1 TB version of the DVR+ for $399.
Useful Gadgets: Mohu Sky Outdoor TV Antenna
- Published on Friday, 19 July 2013 14:13
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
Depending on which media outlets you follow, “cutting the cord” is a fast-growing phenomenon. Or maybe it isn’t. Or maybe it’s a short-term threat to the bottom line of pay TV. Or perhaps it’s a long-term threat.
We do know this: Pay TV subscription rates have increased astronomically in the past ten years. An increasing number of subscribers are bellyaching about paying for channels they don’t watch. Some have even gone so far as to “cut the cord” and drop pay TV channel packages altogether; opting for Internet streaming and in some cases, free over-the-air TV broadcasts.
If you live in a major TV market, chances are there are plenty of free OTA channels you can pull in. Since every television sold since 2006 must include a digital TV tuner for these broadcasts, all you need is some sort of antenna to receive those signals.
And you may be surprised by how many channels there are. If you live in the Los Angeles basin, there are no less than 27 different digital TV broadcast channels carrying over 130 minor (sub) channels of programming! That’s more than I have in my cable TV package, although I’ll grant that I wouldn’t watch many of them.
But at least I don’t have to pay for channels I don’t watch. And that’s the appeal of free OTA TV, combined with on-demand streaming of movies and TV shows from outlets such as Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, and Vudu. All you are paying for is a fast Internet connection.
REACH FOR THE SKY
In the past, I’ve tested a raft of indoor TV antennas from Mohu, Walltenna, Winegard, Antennas Direct, and Northvu. In my most recent test, I also included an indoor test of Mohu’s Sky amplified TV antenna ($169.99, available from Mohu, Amazon, and other online retailers). While it did a pretty good job, this product is intended for true outdoor use and won’t replace a flat, wall-mount antenna.
So, I freed up some time to set up the Sky on my rear deck and really cut it loose. The Sky resembles an “x” dipole, or a crossed dipole antenna. It’s housed in solid plastic and comes with a “J” arm support for and mounting plate for attaching to a roof or eave. The Sky measures 21” x 9” x 1” and is supplied with a 30-foot-long coaxial cable. There’s also an active amplifier inside the Sky, powered by an inline USB-style transformer that mounts at your TV.
You don’t have to use the supplied cable – you can use any cable you want, and I suggest sticking with a decent quality run of RG-6U cable from antenna to TV to keep signal attenuation to a minimum. The phantom power supply will work with really long cable runs (I tried it with 100’ of coax, no problem), and you can also mount the power supply in your basement or attic and split the incoming signal to feed two or more televisions.
For comparisons, I went into my “aluminum archive” and pulled out a ClearStream 1 (single loop antenna) and ClearStream 2 (dual loop antenna), both sold by Antennas Direct, and a Channel Master 4221 four-bay “x” dipole antenna. To level the playing field, I added an external “off brand” amplifier with the ClearStream and CM antennas. This amplifier has about the same gain figure (15 dB) as the Sky model. (You can’t use the Sky antenna without its amplifier switched on.)
For my tests, I procured a pair of 5’ steel masts from Radio Shack and supported them with a Winegard tripod mount, held in place by cinder blocks. The actual outdoor reception test was simple. I attached each antenna to the top of the 10’ mast and rotated it to aim south-southwest toward Philadelphia (position “A” in the results).
I scanned for active channels using my Hauppauge Aero-M USB DTV tuner stick, and for every channel I detected, I then scanned for Program and System Information Protocol (PSIP data). If I was able to read it and identify the channel, I looked at the actual MPEG transport stream using TS Reader (indicated dropped packets and transmission errors) and finally verified that I had 60 – 90 seconds of clean video and audio with no dropout.
This process was repeated after I swung the antennas to the north-northwest, towards Allentown, PA. I expected that in some cases, I’d be able to receive stations from both markets regardless of the antenna position. That’s because these antennas are sold as somewhat omnidirectional or “non-directional.” The manufacturer expects you can install the antenna outdoors as high as practical, and you shouldn’t have to worry about its orientation (North? South? West?).
In reality, all of the antennas I tested are somewhat directional, as you’ll see from my tests. So I suggest picking up a small antenna rotor, which is easy to find at Radio Shack and other online stores. Rotors come in real handy if the TV stations in your market have towers scattered all around the city. (Pittsburgh and Atlanta come to mind here.)
I also took a look at the actual 8VSB carrier waveforms using an AVCOM PSA-2500C spectrum analyzer, mostly to see how much multipath “tilt” was present in the signal. I’ve included a few of those screen grabs here to show the relative signal strength of multiple TV transmitters in the UHF band as received by each antenna.
At my location, the pickings on VHF are slim. WPVI broadcasts a towering signal on channel 6 in Roxborough, PA, while WHYY has a potent carrier on channel 12. In Allentown, WBPH is a strong beacon on channel 9. And that’s about it – the rest of the stations are found on the UHF band.
Of that group, several stations usually stand out in my tests. WPHL is very strong on channel 17, as is KYW on channel 26. (I can receive KYW in my basement, and I’m 22 miles away from the transmitter!) WCAU is pretty reliable on channel 34, as is WLVT on channel 39. And WFMZ in Allentown is broadcasting with over one million watts ERP on channel 46, meaning I can usually pull them in with a paper clip.
I should point out here that the vast majority of indoor TV antennas work pretty well at UHF frequencies, but are electrically too small to pull in many high-band VHF channels. They just can’t approach resonance and have gain. The same thing applies to outdoor antennas – a solid performer at UHF frequencies may have little or no gain on high-band VHF channels.
That doesn’t mean you won’t be able to receive any VHF channels. If the signal strength is there, your smaller antenna may couple enough energy anyway to enable reception. But keep in mind that while a quarter-wavelength antenna for UHF reception might only be five inches long, a quarter-wave antenna for pulling in channel 7 needs to be about 16 inches long to achieve resonance.
The moral of the story is that all of the test antennas are physically the right size for pulling in UHF channels. They may not work quite as well for high-band (175 – 216 MHz) VHF channels, and I don’t expect they’d work at all with low-band (54 – 87 MHz) VHF reception. It all depends on the distance from your reception location to the transmitter.
Table 1 shows how all of the antennas fared. In the “A” position, the Sky gave a good accounting of itself, pulling in all three of the Philly and Allentown high-band VHF broadcasts. It also snagged seven of the ten strongest UHF stations coming from both markets. While Antennas Direct’s ClearStream 1 couldn’t find WPVI on channel 6 (that resonance thing, again), it did even better by pulling in the remaining two VHF signals and all ten of the UHF stations.
Oddly, the ClearStream 2 picked up one VHF channel, but dropped the UHF signal from WYBE-35, giving it a score of 3 VHF and 9 UHF channels. And the venerable Channel Master 4221 four-bay collinear antenna nearly matched it, missing only WYBE and WPVI-6. (Again, this antenna has no gain at lower frequencies.)
Turning the antennas northwest to favor Allentown (position “B”) really quieted things down. The playing field was almost level across all antennas with the Sky locating 2 VHF and 2 UHF stations, the ClearStream 1 digging out one additional UHF station, the Clear Stream 2 adding one more UHF station, and the 4221 spotting one VHF and three UHF stations.
Mohu’s Sky antenna is a strong performer. It did surprisingly well in my earlier indoor antenna tests, but it’s much happier in free space with plenty of oxygen flowing around it. The antenna does exhibit a directional characteristic, as did the three other antennas in this test. But it was able to handle both VHF and UHF signals with aplomb, although its UHF performance wasn’t quite as good as the ClearStream 1 and 2 loop antennas with external amplifiers.
Mohu Sky Outdoor VHF/UHF TV Antenna
Sold by Greenwave Scientific
Also available from other online retailers.
Once More, Back to the – Window??
- Published on Monday, 25 March 2013 19:27
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
Since I launched this Web site ten years ago, I’ve conducted numerous tests of outdoor and indoor TV antennas to see which ones really performed, and which ones were just “aluminum snake oil.” The problem with these tests is that, as soon as I complete one and write it up, I hear from yet another company who missed the boat and wants their time in the sun.
That’s the motivation for this round of tests, which included some previously-tested models and a few newcomers. It’s taken me a few months to schedule this test and round up all of the review models, but the good news is that every one of these antennas is currently offered for sale; some from multiple online retail outlets.
WHY INDOOR TV?
If you subscribe to pay TV services (as I do), you’ve surely noticed two things. (1) The monthly cost of your channel services has gone up over the past decade at a rate far in excess of ordinary inflation, and (2) you probably don’t watch more than 10 to 15 channels anyway on a regular basis.
Now, couple those observations with the expanding universe of Web-based (“over the top”) video channels, including the ever-popular YouTube, Hulu and Hulu Plus, Netflix, Vudu, Amazon Prime, and assorted network-based streaming sites. Add a Roku box, Apple TV, Boxee, or any of a number of OTT receiving solutions; drop the TV channel bundle from your pay TV subscription, and you’ve probably cut your monthly cost by 50%. (This assumes you’re keeping broadband service.)
All well and good, except that streaming video services are very much dependent on available bandwidth. Watching Modern Family or The Avengers at 2 PM when Internet traffic is light is a completely different experience at 10 PM, when it seems that everyone and their brother is hogging bandwidth.
While there’s not much you or I can do about that problem (except perhaps subscribe to FiOS), you can watch HD broadcast network channels for free all over the U.S.A. And if you live near an urban area, you may have multiple channels you can pull in, using that little “F” connector on the back of your LCD or plasma flat screen.
All you need to watch these channels is some sort of antenna. While outdoor antennas always work best, you may live in an apartment or condo where going that route is problematic for cosmetic or legal reasons (even though you do have the right to install an outdoor antenna on property that is yours exclusively, but I won’t get into that now).
The fact is; indoor TV reception has actually gotten easier and better. Yes, I remember the early days of digital TV reception, which involved more luck and prayer than anything else. But we’ve come way past those trial-and-error exercises, and it’s now much easier to pull in local digital TV signals indoors.
All you need is a TV antenna that meets the following criteria: It is resonant or close to resonant at the desired frequencies of reception; can be installed easily on a wall, window, or some other surface suitable for mounting, and is a true plug-and-play design. You just screw on the antenna cable to your TV, go into the appropriate set-up and channel menus, and scan for active channels.
ANYTHING GOOD ON TONIGHT?
If you haven’t tried indoor TV reception yet, you may be surprised just how many channels you can pull in. For many folks living in the Los Angeles basin who have a clear shot toward Mt. Wilson, that could mean as many as 27 major DTV channels with over 130 total sub-channels of programming. Heck, that’s a mini cable system into itself!
I live in the Philadelphia metro market, and can consistently receive 15 major DTV channels with over 30 sub-channels of programming. That’s using a modest dual-band yagi mounted at the base of my chimney, along with a similar antenna installed in my attic. And my dual-band UHF/VHF yagi antennas that sit atop a rotor and 5’ of mast on my roof can pull in another 8-10 DTV stations from New York City, which is about 65 miles distant.
These antenna systems supplement my Comcast cable service, which was cut off during Hurricane Sandy for the better part of a week by a 100-year-old oak tree that chopped the cable and telephone lines in half. Using an inverter (since replaced by a generator), I could still watch local news and weather from all of the locations just mentioned.
I’m a little too far away from the Philly TV towers in Roxborough to depend on indoor antennas, which is why I went the rooftop/attic route. But your location may be closer; in which case one of the models tested in this review could be right for you.
As a general rule of thumb, homes and apartments as far away as ten miles from a TV station should be able to pull in the signal with an unamplified antenna. If the TV tower is located at a high altitude, as is the case in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Portland (mountains) and New York City and Chicago (skyscrapers), that indoor reception distance can increase by 50% or more.
However, there are locations where indoor DTV reception is borderline reliable or problematic. In those cases, an amplified antenna may be a better choice, as digital signals require a minimum threshold above background noise to be received correctly. For the ATSC system used in this country, the “laboratory” threshold is about 15 dB. In real life with signal echoes and fading, it’s more like 20 dB.
There are caveats with amplified antennas. First, not all amplifiers are created equal! Your particular amplifier may have lots of gain, but strong, nearby out-of-band signals can overload it and create more problems than it is fixing.
Second, amplifiers are noisy, and some more noisy than others. It does you no good to add an amplifier if it increases background noise (or as some call it, the noise floor) along with the signal. So a poorly-designed amplifier can actually make difficult TV reception worse.
THE COMPETITORS – PASSIVE DIVISION
I selected nine different antennas for this latest round. Five were unamplified, and four had some sort of internal or external amplification. One of the amplified antennas (Mohu’s Sky) is actually intended for outdoor use, but I figured I’d see just how well it performed by a window anyway. (The Sky will be part of an outdoor antenna test soon.)
To kick things off, I needed a reference indoor antenna. What better choice than the classic UHF bow tie, which Radio Shack used to sell for all of $4.00? Although The Shack has since dropped this antenna from its catalog, you can still find them online. Summit Source has one made by Steren for all of $2.49.
Next up is the NorthVu NV20 Pro, a VHF/UHF panel antenna that claims to use a fractal-based design to improve resonance and performance. NorthVu is a Canadian company and its Web site promotes the use of free digital TV to cut costs of cable. A number of retailers carry it (including Amazon) and it will set you back about $60, plus shipping.
Batting in the #3 spot is the WallTenna, which I’ve tested previously. This flexible, super-flat antenna is intended for UHF reception only, although it might pull in VHF stations if the transmitter is close by. At present, WallTenna is sold direct through the company’s Web site for $35.
Winegard’s FlatWave flexible panel antenna was another solid performer from previous tests, so it deserved another go-around. You can find it at numerous online sites and also in Costco, but prices are all over the place, ranging from $20 to $36. Shop carefully!
No test of indoor antennas would be complete without Greenwave Scientific’s Mohu Leaf, a strong performer in previous antenna tests. You can find it at numerous online and brick-and-mortar retailers (Sears, B&H, Amazon, Sam’s Club, J&R) for$40. You can also buy it direct from Greenwave.
THE COMPETITORS – AMPLIFIED DIVISION
Four more antennas rounded out the test, and all of them use active electronics to boost signal levels. NorthVu sent along the NV20 Pro Amplified, which looks exactly like the NV20 Pro except that it has a built-in power supply with AC cord. It’s currently selling for about $90, and Amazon has it.
Antennas Direct’s ClearStream Micron XG antenna is a panel design that comes in several flavors – (1) bare bones, (2) with a variable multi-step inline amplifier, (3) with a separate reflector panel, and (4) with both options together. Figure $80 for the basic panel with amplifier and $130 for the loaded system (which I tested). Oddly, the AT Web site currently lists a lower price for the basic panel antenna and amplifier ($79.99) than for the antenna alone ($89.99)!
The Mohu Leaf Ultimate is basically a Leaf antenna with an outboard preamplifier. Otherwise, it looks identical to the passive Leaf antennas, and you can find it at the same retail outlets for $90. (Sam’s Club had it for $55 at the time I wrote this.)
Finally, Mohu’s Leaf Sky antenna isn’t really an indoor design, but it’s small enough that I thought it would be fun to include it in this test. You may recall some of the bar-style VHF/UHF antennas that were popular a number of years back at the start of the digital TV transition: These could be installed on a roof or mounted on inside or outside walls. I figured it was worth seeing how well the Sky did on a very large window with minimal amounts of metal nearby to de-tune its pattern.
For consistency, I decided to head back to the scene of my early DTV converter box and antenna tests – Turner Engineering, in Mountain Lakes, NJ. The Turner building is located on a bit of a rise with a decent view to the east, northeast, and southeast; good enough to pull in numerous DTV stations from the Empire State Building in New York City, as well as various DTV stations in northern New Jersey.
John Turner, president of the company and a life-long “tinkerer,” has always been a willing and eager accomplice in these tests, so we set up an area in his front office where we could attach each antenna to a window using copious amounts of masking tape (non-inductive!).
I was also able to find some space to set up the test gear, which included an AVCOM PSA-2500C spectrum analyzer, my Toshiba laptop, Hauppauge’s Aero-M USB stick DTV receiver, and Turner’s in-house DTV receiver system (a Samsung DTB-H260F ATSC set-top box, no longer available, and the legendary Princeton AF3.0HD 28-inch HD CRT monitor that was quite popular in the late 1990s.
The test was simple. After each antenna was attached to the window (not an easy task with some of the heavier models), I recorded the spectral views of various DTV channels from 7 (WABC-DT) through 51 (WNJM-DT). I also recorded wide views of the UHF TV spectrum from channels 14 through 51, and selected views of other high-band VHF DTV stations.
The final part of the test involved verifying reception without any dropouts or “hits” for at least 30 a minute. I also recorded MPEG transport streams from various stations to verify the bit error rate (BER) was indeed low.
If I didn’t see any hits and recorded a clean MPEG stream, the test antenna was rated OK for that channel. If the signal locked up even briefly or I saw too many dropped bits in the MPEG stream, it received an INT grade. If the station’s PSIP (Program and System Information Protocol) was detected by the Samsung and Hauppauge receivers, but the receiver couldn’t tune it in, the antenna received a NO grade for that channel.
Table 1 shows how each antenna fared for 11 different channels. One (WNJB) was on channel 8 in the Warren Hills of New Jersey, while the remaining ten channels were all UHF and came from Empire and selected locations in New Jersey. The two strongest were WMBC-18 (Montclair NJ) and WNJM-51 (also Montclair), less than 11 miles away.
In addition to the channels listed, I also scanned for WABC-7 (previously received in tests at this location), WPIX-11, WNET-13, WNYE-25, and WNJU-36. However, none of the antennas were able to successfully pull in these stations aside from an intermittent signal here and there, so I dropped them from the test results.
The “No Amplifier” tests were surprisingly competitive, although I didn’t expect the cheapest antenna to be the best performer. But that’s how it played out as the UHF bow tie earned nine YES scores, one INT, and one NO. It was the only antenna to pull in WNYW’s signal on channel 44, a notoriously tough catch at this indoor location.
The WallTenna, Winegard’s FlatWave, and the Mohu Leaf all tied for second place with seven YES tallies, but the WallTenna and Leaf edged ahead by pulling in WNBC’s signal on channel 28 somewhat cleanly whereas the FlatWave couldn’t lock it up.
NorthVu’s NV20 Pro was the biggest disappointment in this test. It only garnered four YES scores against seven NO tallies. I would have expected a lot better, based on the preliminary specifications and information I received from NorthVu’s product management folks.
Intriguingly, the NV20 Pro is also about the same size as the late, lamented Kowatec CS102; one of the best indoor UHF antennas I’ve ever tested. (Hey, antenna manufacturers! Maybe one of you can scoop up the rights to the CS-102 and resurrect it?)
Things were a bit more exciting in the amplified antenna competition. Mohu clearly had the upper hand here with their Leaf Ultimate product, as it gathered up ten solid YES scores and a solitary INT (for WNYW, of course!) The new Sky product acquitted itself well as an indoor antenna, also bagging ten YES scores and a single NO (from guess who?).
The ClearStream Micron XG (without the reflector, which no other antenna offered or used) came in behind these two with seven YES and three NO tallies, plus a single INT from our friends on channel 44. Once again, NorthVu brought up the rear with their NV20 Pro Amplified, which fared only slightly better than the basic NV20. It scored five YES, three INT, and three NO tallies.
It says a lot that the least-expensive and simplest unamplified antenna design took on all comers and won. It also implies that the particular location where the antennas were mounted just seemed to favor the bow tie this time around (we didn’t test it with an amplifier). These tests were conducted in March with no foliage on nearby trees, whereas my last test was in late July of last year with trees fully leafed out. Even so, the bow tie did pull in WNYW-44 solid as a rock for as long as we chose to watch, something no other passive or amplified antenna could do.
All of the antennas performed equally well at the low end of the UHF band (channel 18) as they did at the high end (channel 51). Five of them were able to haul in channel 8 (about 180 MHz) reliably, which is an impressive feat for such small antennas that expect to work a lot better at UHF frequencies.
Ironically, only two amplified antennas could pull in WWOR on channel 38, something the bow tie did with relative ease. On channel 30 (WFUT), the NorthVu NV20 Pro was the only antenna that couldn’t hook up to the signal. A similar situation occurred with ION-31, not receivable on any of the passive antennas, but plenty strong with the Leaf Sky, Leaf Ultimate, and ClearStream Micron XG. Once again, the NV20 Pro Amplified just couldn’t pull it off.
I should mention that the ClearStream Micron XG’s preamplifier was set to a maximum of 15. Any higher, and the noise floor was degraded, something I could easily see on the spectrum analyzer. In general, I like to keep amplifiers at about 10 dB maximum to guard against this problem – too much gain creates all kinds of reception issues, and you only need to boost the signals up high enough to maintain the required carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) for reliable digital TV reception.
The separate preamp supplied with Leaf’s Sky and Ultimate antennas is a good design, adding minimal noise while providing sufficient gain to pull signals out of the mud. I can’t say anything about the quality of the NV20 Pro’s amplifier as it is mounted internally, but in my tests it did not appear to add much noise to any of the received signals.
Based on these and previous tests, I’d give the WallTenna, FlatWave, and Leaf a thumbs-up. If you can find one, the bow tie is cheap enough to play around with and may fit the bill. (Hey, Starbucks coffee costs more and the thrill doesn’t last as long). I can’t recommend the NV20 Pro, though.
In the amplified crowd, the Leaf Ultimate and Sky both deliver solid performance. It is a testament to the design of the Sky that it worked so well indoors, but if you opt to use it this way, make sure you have a large window and keep it at least 2-3 feet away from any metal objects.
Antenna Direct’s ClearStream Micron XG is a decent performer, but expensive. I can tell you from a previous test that the reflector made little difference, but if that’s your cup of tea, position the antenna on a non-metallic surface (bookshelf, window ledge, etc.), aim it towards the TV transmitters when using the reflector assembly, and don’t run the preamp higher than the ‘15’ setting.
Most importantly, keep in mind that you don’t need to spend a lot of money to get reliable indoor TV reception. My best performers in the passive category were all under $50, and some were under $40. Check TV reception sites first (TVFool.com is one of the best) to get an idea of how strong signals may be at your location before you buy.