Category: Product Reviews

Useful Gadgets (And They’re Smart, Too!): IO Gear Ultra Long Range Wireless HDMI Link And Amped Wireless Apollo PRO Long Range HD Web Cam

My last “The Front Line” post talked about how the world of consumer electronics has become heavily commoditized (you can buy a lot of functionality for a few dollars these days) and also how smart these gadgets are becoming (artificial intelligence and machine learning have become increasingly important).

The third “leg” of that triad is, of course, wireless connectivity. Without it, most of these gadgets we use today would not even exist, or at the least become largely impractical. Yes, we could install a remote monitoring camera and run power and coaxial cables to it, and we could also run a cable from our tablet to a smart TV to share a video. But that’s just too much work, right?

The two products in this review take full advantage of wireless connectivity. And they’ve also got a limited amount of artificial intelligence in that most of the setup and connection required is performed automatically with minimal human intervention. One product lets you stream wireless video (up to Full HD resolution) over a maximum claimed distance of 600 feet, while the other streams wireless HD video through your home WiFi network to a connected smartphone, tablet, or PC.

IO Gear makes a variety of wireless connectivity products. Their Ultra Long Range Wireless HDMI Transmitter (model # GWLRHDTX, MSRP $199.95) and matching receiver (model # GWLRHDRX, MSRP $199.95) offer the longest transmission distance and use HDMI connections for input and output.

These are not small products. Each unit measures 7.6” x 4.5” x 1.75” and weighs 1.35 pounds, so they’re really intended for permanent installations in places like a lecture hall, church, large meeting room, stadium, or auditorium. At $400 a pair, they’re also more of a commercial AV product than a consumer product, but there might be some consumer installations that would porting HD video over a long distance.

IO Gear’s wireless HDMI transmitter (left) and receiver (right).

The technology behind this product uses bonded WiFi channels in the 5 GHz spectrum to establish and maintain the wireless link. You may already have a wireless modem/gateway in your home that employs this connection mode, known by its formal name of IEEE 802.11ac. With channel bonding, two, three, or four 20 MHz channels can be combined to increase bandwidth. The source video, which has a much higher bandwidth to start with, undergoes light compression (usually in the color channel) to fit.

This process, using OFDM modulation, also requires some form of error correction to recover lost packets. The result is high-quality video from the receiver that has about 1.5 seconds of latency from the source video, which means you wouldn’t want to install this system in the same room where a live event was happening unless all video and audio sources had the same delay interval.

IO Gear’s wireless HDMI transmitter, operating from my basement to transmit an off-air signal to my home theater.


The IO Gear wireless HDMI receiver sending the signal to a 15-inch broadcast monitor for analysis.


The received signal as seen on my 92-inch projection screen, illuminated by a Mitsubishi HC6000 projector.

However, if you want to link HD video over a path that would require an excessively-long wired link or would make installing cable impractical, then the IO Gear products would make a lot of sense. In my tests, the receiver and transmitter found and linked to each other in less than 30 seconds, with the transmitter connected to an HD video source in my basement and the receiver driving a 40-inch HDTV in an upstairs bathroom. This path, through multiple walls and floors, was about 60 feet.

I should point out that wireless HDMI links can use either 9 or 24 channels in the 5 GHz UNII band. Models that can transmit on all 24 channels must be equipped with transmit power control (TPC), using the lowest power possible to maintain the link, and dynamic frequency selection (DFS) to avoid interference to other operations sharing the spectrum. In urban areas, you may find it takes longer to discover a clear channel and set up the link.

Amped Wireless’ Apollo Pro Long Range WiFi HD camera (MSRP $159.99) is another high-performance product that has some smarts. Unlike the IO Gear system, the Apollo Pro operates in the more congested 2.4 GHz WiFi band (a decision that doesn’t make much sense to me). Its output power of nearly 1 watt does give the camera greatly extended range, but in an urban area with dense WiFi use, it may be difficult to locate and maintain an open channel for the camera.

The Apollo PRO in operation, hidden near some holiday decorations to monitor my front hall (and my cat!).


Some of the menu settings on the Apollo PRO as seen on a Samsung Galaxy tablet.

Setting up the Apollo Pro is simple. You simply link your device to the WiFi signal broadcast by the camera, then download the Apollo Pro app from Google Play or iTunes. Launch the app and connect the camera to your home WiFi network. You’ll need to establish an account with Amped Wireless to log in and see your camera’s output, and you can have multiple cameras running at the same time.

The Apollo pro comes with a mounting base (not recommended for outside use unless you live in a very dry climate) and has a long USB-to-AC power cord. The camera has a super-wide 110o field of view and a 10x zoom. The output is 1280x720p HD video in full color, but there is also an array of infrared light-emitting diodes (LEDs) around the perimeter of the camera for night-time viewing. (As with the IO Gear products, you will experience some latency with the Apollo Pro of about 2 seconds from live.)

So, where’s the AI part? You can set the camera up to respond to motion, sound, or both to initiate a recording. The camera can also alert you that it is indeed recording and (here’s where the registered account comes in) saving your recording to the cloud – specifically, a could server maintained by Amped Wireless. The company Web site states that, “…you can relive, save and share what your camera saw when you weren’t watching. Starting at just $3 a month, you can choose a Recording Plan that saves a clip each time the Camera detects sound or motion.”

Daytime (full color) video as viewed on a Samsung Galaxy tablet.


Nighttime operating mode gives you black and white images illuminated by infrared LEDs.

That’s pretty much the case with all the WiFi cameras I’ve seen at CES and at retail. The prices are very low, but you’re expected to take out a monthly subscription to access your cloud recordings after the buy-in. I’d prefer a set-up that lets you archive to your own cloud storage, connected to your home WiFi network, with an option to archive your recordings periodically to a remote server for safe storage.

In my tests, I used the camera to monitor my front hall and figure out what one of my cats does, late every night, when he goes downstairs and wanders around howling for about 20 minutes. With the camera’s IR lighting (with images in black and white), I was able to see that he’s actually playing with a small fuzzy ball, pushing it all over the floor – something he will not do when any humans are present.

I also used the Apollo Pro’s built-in speaker and microphone system to talk to him while he was playing and convince him to come back upstairs, albeit with a very confused look on his face. (The howling is cute for a couple of minutes, and then it becomes very annoying!) These tests showed that the camera has decent dynamic range, avoiding excessive auto-irising with intense light from outside windows and maintaining shadow detail indoors.


Both products show just how far we’ve advanced with ‘smart’ wireless products. The IO Gear Wireless HDMI system maintained a reliable link through several floors in my house with no visible deterioration in signal quality (I also tested image quality on my 92-inch home theater screen with a 1080p projector). At $400 for a pair, it is pricey for the home market and is better suited for commercial installations.

The Apollo Pro camera worked fine no matter where I took my Samsung tablet inside or outside my house. I’d like the latency to be shorter and I’d much prefer the camera operate exclusively in the 5 GHz radio band where there is not nearly as much activity and less chance for interference. It’s also a bit pricey at $160 – I’ve seen WiFi cameras for less than $100 – but the added range may justify the cost for some users.

Useful Gadgets: Winegard FlatWave AIR Amplified Outdoor TV Antenna

Winegard is one of the oldest names in the TV antenna business, having started up in 1954 as analog TV broadcasting was just getting out of the gate. Along the way, they’ve branched into satellite antennas, RV antennas, WiFi antennas, and a host of related accessories.

I’ve tested many Winegard antennas over the years, going back to traditional rooftop log-periodic UHF/VHF TV designs and more recently, super-flat indoor TV antennas (FlatWave) that have generally performed well.

The FlatWave AIR ($99), which I received recently for testing, is an updated version of an antenna I reviewed over 15 years ago that was intended for outdoor installation. It’s a large, box-like housing (14” x 14” x 4”) that clamps to a standard 1 ½” TV mast or a small angle bracket that can be fastened to a roof, the side of a house, or even a deck railing, as the company’s Web site shows.

Winegard’s FlatWave AIR amplified antenna is about as inconspicuous as you can get!

Some other product highlights from the Winegard Web site:

  • Meets Homeowners Association (HOA) Requirements for mounting outdoors (FCC Over-the-Air Reception Devices [“OTARD”] Rule of 1996)
  • Separately amplifies VHF and UHF signals to reduce intermodulation, thereby maintaining the purest signal path possible
  • Bandpass filters remove unwanted RF interference for unsurpassed performance
  • 10x more power handling capabilities than existing antennas


In my earlier review, I found the original design lacking when it came to reception of weaker TV stations that were in my “receivable” location, according to That antenna had better performance on UHF channels than on VHF channels, and no wonder: The physical size of the antenna elements was too small in term of wavelength to pull in stations in channels 2-6, not to mention 7-13.

So what’s changed over the years? Not the outside design, although the mounting pipe is smaller and lighter. This time around, Winegard has added an inline amplifier to boost signal strength (hence the claim of “10x more power handling capabilities”). Does it make a difference? Read on, and find out.

The FlatWave AIR under test.


Back in early August, I tested several new outdoor TV antennas from Antennas Direct and compared them to older designs from over a decade ago. For this test, I replicated the setup I used then, with two 5’ mast sections on my deck to support the antenna and a Hauppauge Aero-M USB stuck receiver to pull in the stations.

Additional documentation and verification came via an AVCOM spectrum analyzer and TS Reader MPEG2 stream analyzing software. I considered the station to be successfully received if I was able to tune it in using TS Reader and it had a low Bit Error Rate (BER) with minimal dropped packets.

The antenna was aimed in two directions – south-southwest to pull in Philadelphia DTV stations from the Roxborough antenna farm, and north-northwest to pull in a handful of stations from the Allentown/Bethlehem area. I logged the MPEG streams from each station and also captured their 8VSB signal waveforms.

Nothing like sitting outside on a hot day and testing antennas!


There are plenty of VHF and UHF TV stations that should be easily receivable at my location. As the August test showed, I can pull in most of them with nothing more than a simple 3-element Yagi made from hardware store parts. The low-band and high-band VHF stations in my area can be a bit of a challenge with that approach, but even adding a simple dipole element solves the problem.

I identified 15 stations available in both test directions that should be receivable and two additional lower-power stations that some antennas might pull in. These channels cover all of the major networks – ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, PBS, CW – plus some independent stations. All but one of these stations are multicasting at least one additional channel.

In my August test, none of the antennas pulled in fewer than 11 stations, and the weakest performer (ClearStream’s 2V) isn’t even sold anymore – it’s been replaced by the 2MAX, one of my stronger performers.

This table shows how the FlatWave AIR stacked up to some of the competition from August 2017.

The FlatWave AIR matched that score with 10 UHF stations and one VHF from Bethlehem when pointed towards Philadelphia. (WTXF’s repeater on channel 38 was only receivable to the northwest.) It did receive the two lower-power “bonus” stations, but so did just about every other antenna from the August test. What was particularly vexing was the inability to pull in WPVI’s very strong signal on channel 6, not to mention WHYY on channel 12 – two “must receive” channels in this market, as they are the ABC and PBS affiliates respectively and aren’t particularly difficult to receive.

Oddly, I did manage to pull in WPVI intermittently with the FlatWave AIR aimed 90 degrees away from the correct beam heading. That’s an indication of very low directivity and an antenna pattern that may have trouble rejecting interfering signals.

This spectrum analyzer screen shot shows one reason why I couldn’t receive WPVI: The noise floor was insanely high. (Forget about KJWP on channel 2!)


For comparison, here’s what the same spectrum looks like when using the ClearStream 2MAX antenna. Note the complete lack of spectral noise and the tall, clean carrier from WPVI. That mountain range to the right is made up of FM stations.


WHYY’s signal on channel 12 was also a no-go – it would come through intermittently and just as quickly disappear.


And here’s what WBPH-9 and WHYY-12 look like using the ClearStream 2MAX.

Another thing I saw with this antenna caused me a lot of concern, and that was tons of spectral noise from 56 to 88 MHz. That noise wiped out KJWP’s signal on channel 2 and another low-power station on channel 4, not to mention almost swallowing WPVI’s carrier on channel 6 entirely. I have no idea where it was coming from, but conventional Yagi antennas don’t see it at all – only loop antennas like the 2V have picked it up before. It’s also possible the noise is being generated in the amplifier, a problem I used to encounter with low-cost Radio Shack in-line RF amplifiers.

But the real design flaw with the FlatWave AIR is the lack of an active antenna element for low-band and high-band VHF TV reception, such as the ones found on the ClearStream 1MAX and 2MAX antennas. With the recent FCC TV channel auction complete, all channels above 36 are going away to be re-purposed for other services. Losing 15 channels means a lot of TV stations that were kicked off those channels will need to relocate, and many of them will wind up on low-band VHF assignments – the “low rent district” of broadcast operations.

That lack of low-band VHF reception means some viewers might not be able to pull in their favorite stations after channels have been repacked. Throw in a lot of man-made and natural spectral noise and interference, and you will have a lot of dissatisfied customers calling 1-800 numbers, or returning products to stores.

The FlatWave AIR is a decent performer on UHF channels. Here’s a few of the UHF spectrum from WPHL-17 (far left) to WFMZ-46 (far right). Just about every channel in this range came in cleanly.


If you live close to TV towers and there isn’t a lot of spectral noise in your area, the FlatWave Air may well do the job for you. By “close,” I mean within 10-15 miles with a line-of-sight path (my test location is 20+ miles away and blocked by two hills). UHF should be no problem; high-band VHF will probably work okay. But low-band VHF could be a challenge.

Winegard might want to consider an add-on kit for VHF reception that would be nothing more than a pair of screw-in or slide-in-and-lock rigid antenna elements. They shouldn’t detract much from the overall appearance of the antenna and would improve its performance noticeably. With channels 2-6 being resurrected from the grave, reliable reception of those channels will become a must-have.

Useful Gadgets: Antennas Direct ClearStream 2MAX and 4MAX Indoor/Outdoor TV Antennas

If you watch enough late-night television or independent local TV stations, you’ll eventually see an ad where George Forman, former heavyweight boxing champion, smiles at the camera and says, “People are always asking me: George, how do I patent my invention?”

Now, I’m pretty sure NO ONE has ever asked George Forman how to patent an invention, just as NO ONE has ever asked me for advice on how to become a championship boxer. On the other hand, I frequently get asked two questions – “What model of TV should I buy?” and “I want to drop cable TV. Can you recommend a good antenna?”

Lately, my answer to the first question is usually “Buy any TV you like. They’re so cheap now that you can just recycle it at the end of the year if you aren’t happy with it.” (I’m not being facetious: I just got a press release from RCA announcing a 50-inch Full HDTV with built-in Roku software for $499 and I’ve seen basic Ultra HDTV 50-inch sets from Hisense for less than that.)

My answer to the second question is a bit more measured. I need to know details before I can give out any practical advice. Do you want an indoor or outdoor antenna? How far do you live from the transmitter site(s)? What obstructions (hills, buildings, towers, etc) are near your home?

My most recent review of TV antennas focused on indoor models, which generally disappoint (with the exception of Mohu and Winegard). In most cases, my trusty $4.99 Radio Shack bow-tie antenna is more than adequate for that job, and if the signals are a bit weak, a low-noise, medium-gain amplifier fixes the problem. Granted; not a very sexy-looking antenna, but function always trumps form when it comes to pulling in TV stations.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal details how Millennials seem astonished that “yes, Virginia; it is possible to watch television for free!” And all you need to do is (a) pick up some sort of TV antenna – yes, they still make those relics of the mid-20th century, (b) connect it to that threaded F-connector on the back of your TV set or pick up a USB tuner stick for your laptop, and (c) do a channel scan.

A few minutes later, you’re able to enjoy HDTV content from ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, The CW, My TV, PBS, and other outlets. On secondary channels like Antenna, Comet, and Me TV, you can enjoy those great old black-and-white and color shows your parents and grandparents watched back in the day, like The Twilight Zone, Gunsmoke, Three’s Company, M.A.S.H. and The A-Team. And of course, your local news and weather (and emergency alerts) is always available, as are NFL games, the World Series, Stanley Cup playoffs, NBA Finals, Olympics, NASCAR and Indy Car racing  (I could go on and on….).

With an increasing number of people ditching expensive pay TV channel packages for fast broadband and video streaming (a/k/a “cutting the cord”); installing an antenna to pick up channels for free seems like a no-brainer. And you can happily ignore the occasional spat between your local cable TV provider and a major TV network over retransmission fees that usually results in a broadcast network channel being blacked out.

Plus, in case of severe weather, you have a Plan B if you lose landline telephone, cable TV, and broadband service. (It happens!) At which point the cellular phone networks get swamped and are often unusable. But you’re a cord-cutting smartie – pick up a battery-powered portable TV and you can stay in touch with weather updates. If you have a generator in your home (like I do), simply switch your TV to the antenna setting and you can continue watching while the utility crews struggle to remove fallen trees and re-string wires.

Ah, what better fun than to sit on your deck on a beautiful summer day and play with TV antennas!


Antennas Direct recently sent me review samples of their new ClearStream 2MAX (MSRP $79.99) and 4MAX (MSRP $149.99) indoor/outdoor TV antennas. (AD brands them as “HDTV antennas,” but that’s misleading marketing – HDTV is a picture format, not an RF transmission format. And some broadcast stations transmit standard definition TV on their sub-channels. (Hey, that UHF bow tie pulls in HD broadcasts, too!)

I’ve tested numerous ClearStream antennas in the past, and just for fun, I pulled a couple out of storage to use in this test for comparisons; the 1V and 2V (no longer offered). I also dug up one of Channel Master’Channel Master’s STEALTHtenna 50 models (MSRP $29.00) and added it to the pile, and to top things off, I included my home-brew ‘ugly duckling” 3-element UHF yagi antenna.

The ClearStream 2MAX antenna under test atop a 10-foot mast.


The ClearStream 4MAX struts its stuff.


Channel Master’s STEALTHtenna joins the fun…


…as did my 3-element “ugly duckling” compact UHF yagi antenna.

The 2MAX and 4MAX antennas are basically loop designs. They should exhibit broadband frequency response across the UHF TV band, although they’re too small to have much gain at low-band VHF (channels 2-6) and high-band VHF (channels 7-13) frequencies. That’s where the single dipole element comes in – it works better for channels 7-13, but is still a bit small for reception of 2 through 6.

Channel Master’s STEALTHtenna is more of a directional design as it is a six-element yagi for high-band VHF and UHF. CM claims 9 dB gain on UHF and 6 dB gain on VHF, compared to the published gain specifications of 2.6 dB on VHF and 8.7 dB on UHF for the 2MAX and 2.5 dB on VHF and 11 dB on UHF for the 4MAX. The low VHF gain figures for the 2MAX and 4MAX are precisely because a single dipole element is being used for VHF – and it has a figure-8 reception pattern front and back.

I’ve never calculated the gain of my ‘ugly duckling’ 3-element UHF antenna, but it would be at least 6 dB since it is directional, but has a wide (75-degree) antenna pattern. Still, it is a useful benchmark for basic TV reception and works surprisingly well, with a full-wave loop driven element resonant around 600 MHz and an aluminum-screen reflector.

Each antenna was placed atop this 10-foot mast and aimed in two directions for the test.


Each antenna was tested with and without the ClearStream Juice mast-mounted preamplifier. (Well, the mast was only 15 feet away from the test equipment…)


Hauppauge’s WinTV Aero-M USB stick receiver, TS Reader software, and a spectrum analyzer performed the critical measurements.


The weather on test day was spectacular – it had dropped into the high 50s the night before and a tropospheric weather duct was present, bringing in strong UHF TV signals from Scranton/Wilkes-Barre PA; over 70 miles to the north. The signals from WVIA-41, WOLF-45, and WNEP-50 were so strong I could pick them up with the 3-element UHF yagi with no amplification! As the morning wore on and the air heated up, the duct quickly disappeared.

I set up everything on my rear deck with two 5-foot Radio Shack mast sections siting in a tripod mount holding up each test antenna. I aimed it north-northwest to pull in stations from Allentown/Bethlehem PA (about 25 miles away) and south-southwest to pull in Philadelphia stations (over 20 miles away with some obstructions). Each antenna was tested with and without a preamplifier (ClearStream Juice, $79.99) to try and pull in a pair of low-band VHF channels (KJWP-2 and WPVI-6), two high-band VHF channels (WBPH-9 and WHYY-12), and a host of UHF stations.

I captured the spectral views for each antenna/amplifier combination and used TS Reader software to decode the MPEG transport stream and verify reception through a Hauppauge Aero-M USB tuner stick. If the station locked up quickly with a low or zero bit error rate (BER), then I checked it off as received. If I saw tiling on the image or a high BER, then reception was considered unsuccessful. I also tuned in selected signals to watch the content and verify reception.

While UHF reception for smaller antennas is generally easy, there are some lower-power stations in Philly that don’t always show up in a channel scan, so I gave bonus points for pulling in two of these stations (WTVE-25 and WGTW-27). I was also very interested to see how each antenna performed with low-band VHF channels – a part of the spectrum that’s particularly susceptible to atmospheric and man –made noise, especially with indoor antennas.

Here’s what the Philadelphia UHF TV spectrum looked like using the ‘ugly duckling’ 3-element UHF yagi with amplification.


The same spectral view as seen with the Channel Master STEALTHtenna and amplifier…


…the ClearStream 2MAX antenna with amplification…


…and the ClearStream 4MAX antenna with amplification.


Just for fun, here’s the UHF spectral view captured with the discontinued ClearStream 1V through an amplifier. If you’re not seeing a big difference in performance across the commercial antennas, welcome to the club.

In general, the easiest signals to capture came from WPVI-6, WBPH-9, WPHL-17, KYW-26, WCAU-34, WYBE-35, WLVT-39, and WFMZ-46 (that last one runs over 5 million watts ERP). KJWP-2, WUVP-29, and WTXF-42 can all be problematic, as are the two lower-power stations mentioned earlier. In addition, WTXF has a repeater in channel 38 in the Lehigh Valley, so I checked for that one as well.

Why’d I test with the Juice preamplifier? The 8VSB transmission system used for digital television in the U.S. has a theoretical minimum carrier-to-noise ratio of 15 dB – but that’s in a perfect environment. In the real world, signal reflections and distortion make it harder for the adaptive equalizers in an 8VSB receiver to pull in a DTV broadcast.

Amplifying the signal at the antenna (not at the TV) boosts the overall C/N ratio and makes it easier for the equalizers to do their jobs. Plus, it provides access to more distant signals: With a 5-element high-band VHF yagi and Channel Master mast-mounted low-noise preamp, I can watch New York City DTV stations that are over 60 miles away – through two ranges of hills.


Table 1 shows the final results for each antenna running ‘barefoot’ – no amplifier. Each antenna gave a good accounting of itself with the 4MAX taking top honors, pulling in 13 stations. Oddly enough, the discontinued 2V grabbed WTVE-25 for a bonus, but still was good for only 11 stations. The ‘ugly duckling’ did about as well as expected since it has zero gain at VHF frequencies, pulling in 7 UHF stations while Channel Master’s STEALTHtenna grabbed just one more.

Table 1. Comparative performance of all antennas without amplification.


A real head-scratcher? The ClearStream 1V (discontinued) came up just one channel short to the 4MAX and out-performed the 2MAX (9 channels) and 2V (11 channels). Go figure! Of course, the 1V and 2V have mesh screen reflectors, giving the antennas some degree of directivity over the 2MAX and 4MAX.

Table 2 shows what happened when a Juice preamplifier was inserted inline, leveling the playing field.  The ‘ugly duckling’ UHF yagi captured 1 VHF and 11 UHF signals – not bad. That tied it with the 1V loop antenna, edging out the larger 2V dual-loop by one station although both of the older ‘loopers’ found the bonus stations. The amplified 2MAX managed to sniff out 14 stations plus two bonus stations for a grand total of 16, tying the amplified 4MAX (it couldn’t pull in WTVE-25).

Table 2. Comparative performance of all antennas using the Juice preamplifier.


But the overall winner in this category was the $29 STEALTHtenna, receiving every possible station in the table including the two bonus channels for a grand total of 17 stations. It tied the 4MAX on the 15 ‘core’ VHF and UHF channels, too. Just goes to show you that a good antenna design doesn’t need to cost an arm and a leg – you could buy 5 STEALTHtennas for the cost of one 4MAX. (Actually, you could buy two STEALTHtennas; mount them on a mast a half-wavelength apart, and run them into a combiner and mast-mounted preamp to add gain to your system.)

KJWP-2 and WPVI-6 as received by the Channel Master STEALTHtenna using amplification. This setup worked very well in the noisy low-band VHF spectrum.


The same channels as seen by the 2MAX antenna with amplification…


…and the 4MAX antenna with amplification.


The discontinued ClearStream 2V might have been a strong performer on UHF channels, but it’s overwhelmed with noise on low-band VHF channels.


To be fair, a difference of one station either way doesn’t really define a “winner” and a “loser” in this test. I might easily have had different results if I moved antennas to either side or changed their elevation. (That’s why each antenna was tested in the exact same location.) I will say that based on my results, I’m not sure you’d need to upgrade to the 4MAX for an additional $70 over the 2MAX – there was a 4-channel difference when both antennas were unamplified, but they tied with the Juice in line.

That’s a lot of extra dough for not much difference in performance, and if you live more than 20 miles from your local TV transmitters the money would be better spent on a mast-mounted preamplifier – especially if you plan to distribute signals to more than one TV through splitters (a two-way splitter will drop signal levels by about 3.5 dB at each port.).

Useful Gadgets: TERK Omni and Turbo Indoor DTV Antennas

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.

Elsa can’t figure out if the Omni is a scratching post or not.

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.

I tried the Trinity Xtend horizontally polarized…

…and vertically polarized.


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.

Laugh if you want at this ancient antenna design, but it can run circles around upstarts!


Table 1. A comparison of all the antennas under test. None of them could pull in WTXF on channel 42.

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.

Compact antenna designs will have trouble with low-band VHF reception.  KJWP-2 and WPVI-6, as picked up by the amplified bow tie…

…are basically ‘missing in action’ on the Terk Omni antenna.

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.

Terk’s Trinity Xtend created a ton of spectral noise on high-band VHF channels 7 through 13…

…that wasn’t seen at all when using the amplified Mohu Leaf.

Here are channels 17 through 46 as picked up by the amplified bow tie.

The same channels using the Terk Omni…

…and the Terk Trinity Xtend, lying flat (horizontally polarized).


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

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 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 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 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 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!)

The tried-and-true bowtie antenna under test. Note the high-tech antenna mount.

The tried-and-true bowtie antenna under test. Note the high-tech antenna mount.

The HD Quad under test.

The HD Quad under test.

The CC Aerowave under test.

The CC Aerowave under test.

Channel Master's StealthTenna 50 under test.

Channel Master’s StealthTenna 50 under test.


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.

The performance of each antenna was verified with an AVCOM spectrum analyzer, Hauppauge Aero-M USB stick receiver, and TS Reader software.

The performance of each antenna was verified with an AVCOM spectrum analyzer, Hauppauge Aero-M USB stick receiver, and TS Reader software.


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. Here's how each antenna performed with 11 VHF/UHF  test channels.

Table 1. Here’s how each antenna performed with 11 VHF/UHF test channels.

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.

Table 2. And here's how each antenna/amplifier combination ranked after the tests.

Table 2. And here’s how each antenna/amplifier combination ranked after the tests.


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.

Just how much difference does an amplifier make? Here's a view of channel 2 through 6, as received by the bowtie antenna, unamplified. WPVI's signal on channel 6 is at the center of the screen.

Just how much difference does an amplifier make? Here’s a view of channel 2 through 6, as received by the bowtie antenna, unamplified. WPVI’s signal on channel 6 is at the center of the screen.

And here's the spectral view with the Juice amplifier inline. You can actually see KJWP's signal on channel 2 now (far left).

And here’s the spectral view with the Juice amplifier inline. You can actually see KJWP’s signal on channel 2 now (far left).



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

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.

Here's a spectral view of WBPH-9 and WHYY-12 with no amplification...

Here’s a spectral view of WBPH-9 and WHYY-12 with no amplification…

And here are both channels after turning on

And here are both channels after turning on “the Juice.”


Here is a view of the UHF TV spectrum from channel 17 to channel 46, as received by the Aerowave with the Juice amplifier. (I could only pick up one signal without amplification.)

Here is a view of the UHF TV spectrum from channel 17 to channel 46, as received by the Aerowave with the Juice amplifier. (I could only pick up one signal without amplification.) Many of the TV signal waveforms are quite distorted, which makes the job of the adaptive equalizers that much harder.

Here's the same view of the UHF TV spectrum, this time received by the HD Quad equipped with the Juice amplifier.

Here’s the same view of the UHF TV spectrum, this time received by the HD Quad equipped with the Juice amplifier. Note that the TV signal waveforms are somewhat cleaner with less multipath distortion.

One more look at the UHF TV spectrum, this time through the elements on Channel Master's StealthTenna 50 and Juice amplifier.

One more look at the UHF TV spectrum, this time through the elements on Channel Master’s StealthTenna 50 and Juice amplifier. Most received channels are very clean with little multipath distortion.

Finally, the same UHF TV spectrum, this time as received by the lowly bowtie, again with

Finally, the same UHF TV spectrum, this time as received by the lowly bowtie, again with “Juice.” Amazing how well such a simple antenna works, isn’t it? That big spike on the far right is WFMZ-46, whose operating frequency is close to resonance with the half-wave loop created by the bowtie antenna. Hence, the very strong signal. (At one time, channel 46 was near the middle of the UHF band, believe it or not!)


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 ( 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…