Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
520 of 531 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Antennas Compared, May 31, 2007
I'm a first timer at getting OTA HDTV. This has been an experiment in progress for the past 5 weeks. I have gone through four antennas (they are all here as I write this) before finding something that's satisfactory (rather than tolerable).
I live around 25 miles from Manhattan, where the towers of most TV stations are located. I am also aware of the directional information from [...], and have experimented accordingly with its effects on reception. My apartment's windows all face north, while the signals all comes from southwest. I cannot get signals from where it comes from, and thus needed to get signals from deflections perhaps off nearby buildings and trees. It's a very poor circumstance for over-the-air reception, maybe just slightly better than being underground. Signals are weak, and are affected by weather. Stormy and windy days have shown effects at disrupting signal reception.
With this said, and without going into much detail, let's talk about the antennas. Now all these antenna have been tested with the same equipment, setup, directional adjustments, location, etc. etc. and have been tested through good an foul weather, day and night, to observe differences.
1.Terk HDTVa Terk HDTVa Indoor Amplified High-Definition Antenna for Off-Air HDTV Reception- After reading some rave reviews and high ratings at [...], log periodic types (looks like a fishbone) seems to be the way to go. I got the Terk HDTVa first, thinking that the amplification and VHF antenna should nail my reception problems at the start. However, after more than two weeks of fidgeting around ad nauseam (directions, locations, amplifications, different devices, etc.), I only managed to pick up two ATSC channels' signals, and even those don't have strong enough signals to display anything. I thought maybe it's just my poor location, and that I should probably give up on the attempt. The included in-line amplifier dongle doesn't work at all. Powering it on makes no difference in signal strength readings, which hovered around 5-10%.
It is well built, looks nice, good concepts, but it just didn't work.
2.Phlips PHDTV1 Philips PHDTV1 Digital HDTV-UHF Indoor Antenna- The venerated "silver sensor" which was previously sold under the Zenith brand also had great ratings and reviews. It's in fact nearly legendary. I decided, in desperation, to try it out, even if it doesn't have amplification. It seems all my local HD channels are in UHF anyway, so I won't miss the VHF dipoles.
The unit has startlingly poorer build quality compared to the Terk. It has paint bubbles, hairs and dusts trappings in the paint, sharp edged cheap plastics and much thinner metal blades that's covered in oil and has some dings and bendings. I wasn't impressed with the quality, and didn't expect much from it as I set it up.
To my surprise, it picked up 9 working channels (note: the terk got two channels' signals, but they didn't work) from the start, even if it's randomly placed. It's thrilling as it was the first time I saw OTA HDTV. After some adjustment and location experiments, I was able to receive 19 channels. However, not all of these channels work well given the same direction.
The directionally sensitive antenna needs to be adjusted as I switch channels. e.g. NBC and CBS seems to work well in one direction, while ABC has its own favorite direction, which works also with FOX. I tried as best as possible to find a compromise point where everything works. I couldn't. It just needs to be adjusted constantly.
The transmission is often dogged by reception fluctuations. Signal quality tend to fluctuate quite a bit, especially affected by weather. That means the TV playback would get choppy at times, with its severity dependent on the direction I point the antenna at. I didn't think fluctuating signals was a characteristic until I tried the latter two antennas later. I also found that I had to constantly play with the directional positioning to get a stable signal from each of the stations.
It works, and I was impressed, but then in retrospect it could only be best described as a "tolerable" HDTV experience as I struggled for a smooth signal delivery.
3.RCA ANT111 Basic Indoor Antenna- While shopping in stores, I saw this basic and classic RCA loop/dipole antenna for less than $[...]. I couldn't resist the temptation to try it out, just for the heck of it. It is also a different type of antenna than the previous two.
Again, I was surprised. This cheap antenna worked well, especially considering how it's only a fraction of the price of the two I'd tried. I ended up getting 17 channels, a few less than the PHDTV1, with the same location and setup. Some channels also don't work, even if signals were detected. The quality of the signals seems to be the key.
So what's so special about it? It strangely had better signal delivery for the channels that worked. It's not as choppy, and quality level is very steady. It is also not as affected by directional positioning. I was for the first time able to view FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC without adjusting the antenna. However, the lack of directionality also makes it ambiguous when I lost the signal. It seems that there's no "favorite direction" for the channels, which also means I can't pull in stronger signals at my choosing. It is also quite susceptible to weather changes, particularly wind (which probably affected signals reflected by trees?)
The signal strength also seems to be a little weaker, though the signal quality tend to be higher in general. That probably contributed to the smoother video delivery. It also tempted me to get a similar design that has amplification.
4.Philips MANT510 Philips High Performance Amplified Indoor Uhf/ Vhf/ Fm Antenna- This unit has a "digital TV optimized, patent pending UHF panel array". I thought I'd try it out just for the slightly different antenna design, if not just for the adjustable amplification.
Well, it works, and works quite well. The antenna doesn't work without power, and with amplification turned off it works a little less than unpowered PHDTV1 and ANT111. Yet with the amplification turned on, I get 24 channels, with strength up to 81% (compared to 3-10% unamplified, and quality consistently above 60 and usually in the 70-90%+. That generates the most reliable video delivery of all the ones tried.
While thunderstorms still managed to distrupt signals, it's much less often and only momentarily. I also don't have to worry about hunting for signals as I just point it in one general direction and I get everything but three NJN channels (they are even further from here.. maybe a good 50 miles).
I finally can just set the antenna and forget it. It lets me focus on the programming rather than antenna adjustment. While it needs to be powered, it gives me the confidence to finally enjoy HDTV, rather than tweaking and tolerating it. It's good enough that I can probably stop searching. I hope it'll be helpful to you who may be going through the same purchasing decision nausea as I have.
|
|
|
50 of 57 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Decent reception, shoddy workmanship, not worth it., October 4, 2007
I ordered two of these less than a year ago, one for me, one for my friend. My friend was unable to get much reception with it, but that's perhaps not surprising given the distance he is from antennas.
I had previously been using a cheapo RCA rabbit eared antenna. It worked well enough. This one offered slightly better reception, 80/100 for most channels, occasionally 90 for one channel, and mid 70's for another.
The unit is somewhat directional, but doesn't require constant adjusting for me. I'm less than 10 miles from most of the local antennas. Overall I was pleased with it, until yesterday.
Yesterday, I noticed one of my recordings was somewhat pixelated. I went to adjust the antenna and couldn't get a decent signal. Some channels would register 75 or 80 but still be pixelated every 10 seconds or so, and the picture would drop for a second every few minutes. I then discovered that the antenna had become dislodged from the coaxial connector where the coaxial cable screws in. I fiddled with it on and off but was unable to get a really good reception with it anymore.
I did some research online and found that this unit was among the recommended indoor models still, but a radio shack antenna (two of them, actually, but one was discontinued) was more highly recommended. I replaced this unit with the radio shack 15-1892 unit and now get 90's in all channels, much better than the zenith ever got. It also has a remote for rotating as well as sturdy rabbit ears. I'd definitely recommend that unit over this one.
I spoke with the friend, who had been using the other zenith. His had broken in the exact same spot within a few months. As such, shoddy workmanship prevents me from recommending this. It did get decent reception, but having to replace two units in less than a year is pretty absurd.
|
|
|
35 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Awesome Antenna, December 10, 2006
I bought the antenna at Circuit City, just to give it a shot.The antenna was so good that I cancelled my basic cable service and returned the HDTV descrambler or whatever they call it,the same day.I couldn't believe all this time I paid $35 a month for something that is available free.
Antenna didn't need any pointing or directing,It picked up all the HD channels available in the area.The signal remained the same wonderful quality irrespective of the position or the angle.
I guess my location being in close proximity(6 -10 miles) to broadcast stations also helped.
Great antenna.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
