PRODUCT REVIEW: SEPTEMBER 2008
Five (Antennas) To Get Ready
Haven’t bought an outdoor antenna yet for watching digital TV? Here are five contenders for your consideration.
With the DTV transition looming ever closer, many TV stations will switch frequencies one final time on or just before February 17, 2009. I’ve covered this switcheroo before (see A Game of Musical Chairs) and the final channel assignments are readily available on the FCC’s Web site in Word and Excel formats.
Still, knowing one or more of your local stations will move to a new channel is one thing; doing something about it is entirely another. With fall looming and colder days just around the corner, now’s a great time to get out and replace your old antenna with one that’s ready to go on 02/17/09.
The FCC’s final channel election tables show that only 40 or so DTV stations will remain on or move back to low-band VHF channels 2 through 6. In contrast, over 350 stations will park themselves on high-band VHF channels 7-13, with the remainder setting up shop between channels 14 and 51.
If you’ve put up a UHF antenna for DTV reception and no moves are planned in your market, then just skip this review unless you really do need a new piece of aluminum on your roof! But if one or more stations in your market are switching channels, read on. All five of these antennas are current models and promise to receive “all TV channels” post-transition, and look and work very differently from each other.
Figure 1 – Winegard’s SS-1000 and SS-2000 have an identical appearance from the outside.
Figure 2 – Channel Master’s CM2016 is a classic suburban
UHF yagi design with a VHF dipole added.
THE CONTENDERS
Two of the models in this review will be familiar to long-time readers of this site. Winegard’s Square Shooter (SS-1000) and Super Shooter (SS-2000) have both been the focus of extensive reviews in 2004 and 2005. In contrast, Channel Master’s CM2016 is a whole new yagi design that is optimized for high-band VHF and UHF channels.
Ditto Antenna Direct’s ClearStream C1 and C2 models. At least, that seems to be implied by the description of these antennas on the company’s Web site, which reads, “…High gain, and compact design offer excellent gain and impedance matching across the whole post 2009 DTV spectrum.”
Of the five antennas, only the CM2016 dual-band yagi actually looks like it would be resonant at VHF frequencies. The Winegard models (helical log periodic) have proven to be much better with reception of UHF channels than VHF, while the two ClearStream designs (full-wave loop antennas against a screen reflector) are clearly too small to have much gain below the UHF TV band.
As far as pricing goes, you can pick up the CM2016 for about $50, while the C1 will set you back $60 and the C2 about $80. You’ll need to pull out a bit more green for the SS-1000 ($99) and the SS-2000 ($139), though you can find some nice deep discounts on both models online.
Figure 3 – The ClearStream C1 is about as simple as it gets.
Figure 4 – The ClearStream C2 adds a second loop element for more gain.
Figure 5 – The reference preamp was connected through 50 feet of RG-6 to the DTV receiver.
THE TEST
I decided to give all five antennas a thorough workout. That meant a two-stage test, consisting first of analog and digital reception towards the northwest from the rear of my deck. Three Allentown/ Bethlehem DTV stations can be had in that direction over a 23-mile path — WBPH-9, WFMZ-46, and WLVT-62.
The second part of the test took place on my front walk with each antenna aimed southwest towards Philadelphia. Active DTV stations in that direction include WNJS-22, WTVE-25, KYW-26, WGTW-27, WPPX-31, WPSG-32, WYBE-34, WTXF-42, WHYY-50, WPHL-54, WPVI-64, WUVP-66, and WCAU-67.
For more fun, I tested each of the antennas with and without an external mast-mounted preamplifier, in this case Channel Master’s Titan 2 7777 dual-band, high-gain model. Only the SS-2000 could not be evaluated this way, as it already has a built-in preamplifier. The antenna support was 8’ of Radio Shack mast sections held in place with a standard rooftop mast mount and a few cinder blocks to weight it down.
The actual test consisted of several steps. First, I scanned the airwaves for any and all active NTSC and ATSC channels, using AutumnWave’s OnAir Solution HDTV-GT Gen 5 TV receiver and my Acer notebook PC. Step 2 was to measure signal strength on each analog TV channel with a Sadelco Mini-Max 800 signal strength meter. Successful DTV signal reception of each channel was verified by at least one minute of viewing with no picture or audio dropout.
Finally, I grabbed numerous screen shots across the VHF and UHF TV spectrum for each antenna to compare signal waveform shapes and carrier intensities. This last step made it easier to see the sometimes-subtle differences in performance from one channel to the next.
Figure 6 – Here’s the rear deck/yard antenna test set-up.
THE RESULTS: PART 1
While reception of WFMZ-46 and WLVT-62 isn’t particularly difficult at my location, WBPH’s signal on channel 9 requires a decent VHF antenna to pull in reliably. Only the CM2016 was up to the task, providing solid reception with or without the Titan 2 preamp. Winegard’s SS-1000, equipped with the Titan 2, delivered and erratic signal with frequent dropout, while the SS-2000 couldn’t hack it at all.
UHF reception was not nearly as much of a challenge. All five antennas sniffed out WFMZ’s digital signal with no trouble, but only the preamp-equipped CM2016, C1, and C2 tuned in WLVT’s channel 62 broadcasts reliably. It was a no-show on both of the Winegard models.
As far as analog reception went, the clear winner was the C2/preamp combination, pulling in 16 NTSC stations with signal levels registering above –20 dBmV. First runner-up position went to the C1/preamp combo, which logged 15 stations, and 3rd place went to the CM2016/preamp combo with 14 stations. The SS-1000 was just behind with 13 stations and the SS-2000 brought up the rear with 8 stations above the –20 dBmV threshold.
While testing the CM2016, I was able to see DTV carriers from WBRE-11 and WYOU-13, but couldn’t quite get either station to lock up. I was, however, able to watch the analog programs from both channels (28 and 22, respectively) using both the amplified CM2016 and amplified C2.
Table 1. Reception of WFMZ-46 was a piece of cake. Other channels weren’t so simple.
Figure 7 – And here’s the front yard test location.
THE RESULTS: PART 2
Things got a bit more interesting with the second round of tests. Among the amplified antennas, the clear winner was the C1, which successfully picked off 13 of 15 available UHF DTV stations and delivered clean reception on all of them. Channel Master’s CM2016 and the C2 tied for second with clean reception of 11 UHF DTV stations and a bonus — New Jersey high-band VHF station WNJB on channel 8, 37 miles away off the back of the antenna.
Of the various “Shooter” configurations, the SS-1000 piggybacked with the Titan 2 preamp fared best, snagging 10 UHF digitals cleanly. That was one better than the SS-2000 could deliver. Unamplified, it was pretty much a tossup, with the SS-1000 and C2 tied at 5 usable DTV stations and the CM2016 and C1 on their tails with 4 usable DTVs.
As far as analog (NTSC) reception goes, the amplified CM2016 captured the brass ring, delivering a total of 16 VHF and UHF stations above the –20 dBmV threshold. The amplified C1 actually tied this number, but overall signal levels were lower across the board, particularly on low-band VHF channels as you’d expect.
3rd place went to the amplified C2 with 15 VHF/UHF stations, while the amplified SS-1000 was just behind with 14. The SS-2000 brought up the rear with 9 usable signals, only two ahead of the “bare bones” CM2016 (7) and C2 (7).
I should note that low-band and high-band VHF channels, although strong, weren’t as clean through the C1 and C2 as they were through the CM2016. The latter’s yagi design and higher VHF gain made for cleaner images, less multipath, and fewer ghosts. But you might be able to get away with the C1 or C2 if you live close enough to a given VHF station, with the signal coupling into the antenna just by sheer signal strength.
Table 2. The C1 and C2 are ideal for markets with lots of UHF DTV stations. Just don’t expect them to pull in VHF channels cleanly.
Figure 8a-b. The amplified SS-1000 intermittently picked up WBPH-9 (top), but the amplified CM2016 grabbed it easily and also spotted WNJB-8, WBRE-11 and WYOU-13 (bottom).
CONCLUSIONS
If it wasn’t obvious before, it’s pretty clear now that Winegard’s Square Shooter designs, although more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than most antennas, are real compromises when it comes to TV signal reception. While they work moderately well in parts of the UHF band, neither antenna is a great performer on high-band VHF channels and both are largely useless with low-band VHF stations unless you use an accessory amplifier or have a close-in, line-of-sight path to the transmitter.
Surprisingly, the SS-1000 worked much better with the external Titan 2 preamp than did the SS-20000 with its built-in preamplifier. In most cases, the SS-2000 didn’t fare much better than its unamplified competitors.
The C1 and C2 models from Antennas Direct were pleasant surprises and solid performers across the UHF band, although I’d caution the company to clarify the language on their Web site about “the whole post-2009 DTV spectrum.” The C1 and C2 are designed primarily as UHF antennas, as evidenced by the standing wave ratio (SWR) performance curve that Antennas Direct posted for the C2.
Either AD company officials aren’t aware that 400 or so DTV stations will be broadcasting in the VHF band after 2/17/09, or they simply made a typographical error. (Let’s hope it’s the latter!)
This brings us to the CM2016, a rather unassuming piece of aluminum that performed above my expectations, to say the least. By itself, it’s a decent design that doesn’t have a whole lot of gain, but is directional enough for urban and suburban reception. Hitched to a high-gain preamp, though, it holds its own on UHF with the C1 and C2, and can snag those high-band V’s with ease — even off the rear of the antenna (although let’s face it, the VHF element is basically a dipole with a figure-8 reception pattern!).
The multipath and signal dropout issues that might result from a given antenna not being very directional are largely resolved in current-model digital TV tuners, many of which are equipped with Generation 5.5 and even Generation 6 adaptive equalizer designs. In this case, reliable reception off the rear of the CM2016 (and off the sides, too) is a bonus, as it does away with the need for a rotator.
Which is best for you? To make the right choice, consult those FCC tables and then march yourself over to www.tvfool.com and print out a Longley-Rice signal propagation plot for your reception location. If you’ve got all UHF assignments, then the C1 or C2 are definitely worth a look. Did the FCC stick you with a few VHF channels, too? Go with the CM2016, or consider its soon-to-be-released siblings (CM2018 and CM2020 for far suburbs and fringe reception).
As for the two Shooters, if you live close enough to the transmitter and have a relatively unobstructed path from your house to the TV station(s), either may work OK for you. They’re not as directional as I’d like, but they’ll pull in signals quite well at close range and have the best eye appeal of this group.
