Improving TV Reception?

[vdeane]

I became a fan of iZombie a few months ago, which started season 3 just last week, and that's making it hard to ignore my reception problems.  I mostly watch ABC, which has borderline reception (good in the winter, not so good but usually workable in the summer), so I've just put up with it for a while, but the CW is one of the weaker stations, and just getting the station watchable is an incredible challenge, let alone getting good reception or maintaining reception as the weather gets warmer and the leaves get on the trees (and the bush outside my ground floor apartment).  For some reason, CBS and NBC are the only stations that are consistently clear; ABC and FOX are borderline, and everything else, including PBS and CW, are nigh unwatchable without a ton of work that I can't even consistently accomplish.  I don't know what I'm going to do because my reception is just that bad.  Is there anything I can do to improve it?

I have a ground floor apartment and the lone window in the direction of the transmitters is on the other side of the apartment, so there's a hundred foot coax cable between my (amplified) antenna and the TV.  Additionally, that room is partially below ground, so I have no permanent means of placing the antenna anywhere above grass; elevating the antenna sometimes works, but not always, especially for the CW.  I've been pulling my hair out all evening; I didn't have nearly as hard a time last week when it was colder!

[1995hoo]

What sort of antenna are you using?

The first two things I would verify, if you have not already done so, are (a) what are the actual channel numbers as opposed to the mapped numbers (more on this in a second) and (b) is your antenna the proper type based on that?

As to (a), many, perhaps, most, digital channels since the changeover a few years ago broadcast in the UHF band despite many having VHF numbers. Our CBS affiliate, for example, shows up on the TV as Channel 9 but actually broadcasts on Channel 48. But at least one of them (I think our ABC affiliate) broadcasts on VHF. So around here we need an antenna that picks up UHF and VHF. I would suggest you look online to find out what the "actual" channel numbers are in your area if you have not already done so. Based on that, my comment (b) relates to getting the proper equipment in terms of a UHF-only or a UHF/VHF. I can tell you what we have if you're interested. We have two antennas upstairs and they both work pretty well (occasional interference when a plane flies over). I know they were around $15 each at Best Buy.

[lordsutch]

I'm guessing a big part of the problem is that the coax run is absolutely killing your signal. Could you put a digital tuner in the room with the antenna and then stream video from it through an app on your TV or a box, or run an HDMI cable (which won't have as much signal loss as coax)? There are a few options on the market, depending on how technical you want to get... Tablo, HDHomeRun, TiVo Roamio OTA, etc.

You might also just need a better antenna. Amplifying a bad signal more often than not just gets you an amplified bad signal, not a good signal. Clearstream, Antennas Direct, and Channel Master tend to be the best rated brands. A good one can run $50-150.

[slorydn1]

I'm guessing a basic cable or satellite package is out of the question?

I was going to suggest a signal amplifier but Lordsutch brought up a good point-that and you did already state that your antenna was already amplified.

I am using a signal amplifier supplied by my DirecTV installer as I was having problems with 6 boxes being supplied by a single antenna and my signal is clear as a bell now. I was having horrendous problems if more than 3 TV's were in use before they did that. But it sounds like that won't help your lack of altitude problem.

All of my cord cutting friends live in single family homes so they have no issue getting their antennas high enough or in a clear enough spot relative to the station's broadcast antenna. This was somewhat important even in the analog days, but is absolutely necessary now in the digital era.

[SP Cook]

The website tvfool.com is filled with information. 

If you are in an apartment, how old is the building?  Lots of buildings built before the mid-70s had a community antenna on the roof, and the wires for it are generally still there.  You might talk the landlord into letting you bolt one up there.

[MikeTheActuary]

Mmmm.  Roadgeek hobby meets ham radio hobby. 

The first two things you likely want to do are to make sure that you know where the transmitter for the local CW station is, and what channel it's actually broadcast on.  (The actual channel is almost always different than the channel number used to ID the station, due to  how the digital changeover happened.)   Different antennas are required for broadcast channels 2-13 than for 14+.  The simplest place for most folks to find such information is to look up the TV station on Wikipedia.  (Most stations are now broadcasting on actual channels 14+, and those frequencies would be most susceptible to absorption by vegetation.)

An outside antenna as high up as you can get it is going to be the best option, but that may not be viable in an apartment situation.

In most apartment situations, getting the antenna at a window that faces the transmitter site is likely to be your best option.  If you are using "rabbit ears" (the telescoping metal rods), a loop antenna, or a flat antenna, position the antenna such that the plane described by the antenna is broadside to the direction towards the transmitter.   If you're using a log-periodic antenna (the arrow looking thing), point it such that the shortest elements are aimed towards the transmitter.

Bigger antennas are generally better than small antennas.  Shorter coax runs are better than longer.  The coax most consumers buy from stores and online is usually not wonderful, but given the other issues with digital TV, I'm not certain that I'd sweat that.

If you were really gung-ho about maximizing your reception of that station, you could built a circularly-polarized antenna tuned for the specific frequency in question...but that's overkill for all but the most obsessed.

And of course it bears asking...do you actually have to watch the show live, over the air?  I thought most networks now had some provision to stream their shows.  And there are other admittedly of-dubious-legality methods of obtaining content online if an official streaming source isn't available.

[vdeane]

The antenna is a GE model 34763 bar antenna, amplified (that's how the label on it self-identifies anyways; I lost the box and everything else a while ago; it's about two feet wide and an inch or two high); it was the one with the best rating at WalMart when I lived in Rome (anything less wasn't picking up anything there, though at least that apartment was second floor instead of literally ground level).  Don't know where the coax cable came from, since it was installed by a previous antenna who wanted to watch cable TV in bed, though I know my signal improved when I got a coax barrel so I didn't have to use the splitter in that capacity.

Largely I'm too cheap to pay for something I should be able to get for free.  Plus I don't like how boxes are required these days.  My TV's tuner works fine, so why should I be required to get another one, with an additional remote, and using another power outlet?  I remember when you could just plug the cable in to the TV.  Not sure how easy it would be to replace the cable, either - I don't have the equipment to replace the staples anchoring it to the wall or to run it back where the carpet meets the linoleum floor in the kitchen, or to make it the right length (the current cable is actually about 5-10 feet too long since it was intended to go to a splitter near the couch and not the TV).

All TV channels in the Capital District are broadcast from a single tower near Thatcher Park.  CBS and NBC are VHF, all others UHF.  The tower is southwest of my apartment, but due to how everything is arranged, I can only point the antenna south or west.  ABC works in both positions (though better south), but oddly, CBS only works south and CW only works west.

[MikeTheActuary]

If your TV's built in ATSC tuner is fine, you should be good to go with the OTA signals.  It looks like there are discrete antennas on the mountain in question, so that's likely sufficient to cause slight apparent differences in reception quality (especially considering how broad-band antennas can be).   5-10 feet of RG6 is unlikely to make the difference here.

Realistically, looking around for better antennas, is your best bet if you are going for OTA reception.  (If you don't want to trim RG6, you probably don't want to attempt custom-building an antenna to maximize efficiency at that particular frequency!)  I haven't used the particular model mentioned, but I'm skeptical of the design outside of close-in uses.  Something a little larger, with more directivity might be in order, and remember that if you set the antenna at a window, you can try to angle it.  (And depending on your preferences, you could move an antenna from window to window for different stations....)

Beyond that... physics ain't magic.  There's only so much you can do with what you seem to have.

[kphoger]

Coax loses quite a bit of signal at long distances.  If the reception is poorest on the lower channels, then that's a dead giveaway your signal strength is weak.  This problem is worse with RG-59 than with RG-6, but it's a shortcoming of all coax.  As has been mentioned, running something other than coax would be the best solution.  HDMI, Ethernet, USB.  Is there any way to make one of those work?

If you're missing a port on one of the devices to make it work, you could search online for signal converters or adapters to switch from one cable type to the other.  For example, my Blu-Ray player only has an HDMI out but my TV only has a composite (red-white-yellow three patch) in, so we had to get a small converter to downgrade the signal from one to the other.

There are websites where you can order a custom length of whatever type of cable you need.  Or, if you know someone who works in the cable business (like myself), then you could ask them cut you the proper length of Cat-5 or whatever.

[vdeane]

The channel numbers, for the curious: https://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=print_market&mktid=70

This certainly explains why CBS, NBC, and FOX seem to come in just fine (the VHF stations), ABC (the lowest UHF station) is borderline, and everything else is finicky.

[lordsutch]

Those bar antennas may look nice but they're actually kind of cheesy. Your best options would probably be one of these:

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B000EHWCDW/ref=dp_cerb_1
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01HQ4BRIG?ref=emc_b_5_t&th=1

Or if all your stations are in the same direction and you have something to put it on to point it out the window:
https://smile.amazon.com/Terk-HDTVAZ-Amplified-Indoor-Antenna/dp/B0007MXZB2/

If you don't have luck with any of those, you may have a bad coax run and need to replace it with new RG6.

[jwolfer]

If you have highspeed internet why not use Hulu, Roku, netflix etc

LGMS428

[1995hoo]

If you have highspeed internet why not use Hulu, Roku, netflix etc

LGMS428

See above....vdeane objects to paying any more than the minimum necessary.

[Scott5114]

If that's the case, why not just watch it on the CW website? I remember doing that to watch a few episodes of the revived Whose Line Is It Anyway.

[kphoger]

If that's the case, why not just watch it on the CW website? I remember doing that to watch a few episodes of the revived Whose Line Is It Anyway.

Regularly streaming video can quickly eat up a customer's data allowance.  Depending on your provider, going over your allowance could either mean being automatically bumped up to the next higher (more expensive) data tier, automatically being given (sold) an extra chunk of data allowance, or having your internet temporarily disabled.  And that's assuming either (a) the modem is anywhere near where he wants to watch TV, or (2) he has both a router and a wi-fi ready device that's worth watching TV on.

[vdeane]

I had seen the CW website while doing something earlier this week, but could not test because it uses Flash and Chrome hates Flash.  I tested it in Firefox yesterday and it works fine, so that's what I'll do for weeks where reception is too bad (many places make you sign in with a cable subscription, so I wasn't sure if I could).  Fortunately, Verizon FiOS doesn't have data caps, and my computer actually has an HDMI cable connecting it to the TV that I occasionally use.  Getting it on the TV is as simple as dragging a window to another monitor (after turning on the signal to the TV, switching the TV to the computer input, moving the sound over to the TV, and changing the power settings to keep the screen from blanking since streaming players don't always do that automatically).

Netflix is how I watched seasons 1 and 2.  Of course, season 3 probably won't be on Netflix for several months.  Hulu, alas, switched to pay-only recently, and there comes a point where you start to figure "if you have to pay for all these different services to get everything, then internet streaming has become the new cable".

[kphoger]

there comes a point where you start to figure "if you have to pay for all these different services to get everything, then internet streaming has become the new cable".

The statement is true.  And this, from someone who works for a cable company.  Landline phone is on life support (Lifeline quasi-pun not intended), and cable TV would probably be dead if it weren't for (1) DVRs, which people love, and (2) the inability of customers to only subscribe to the individual channels they actually care about.

FWIW, our family only has internet service.  We watch everything on DVD/Blu-Ray, Netflix, or Amazon.  We have one of those Wal-Mart $1 digital converters from a few years ago, but that's just to plug in during tornado warnings and the Olympics–the only two things we care about watching live.

[1995hoo]

I looked into the cord-cutting thing but quickly dropped the idea. I watch so much sports, most of it local teams (plus F1), that there wasn't a viable easy alternative.

[The Nature Boy]

I looked into the cord-cutting thing but quickly dropped the idea. I watch so much sports, most of it local teams (plus F1), that there wasn't a viable easy alternative.

The placement of local teams on cable was probably the most smartest move for the cable industry. When you combine this with blackout rules for things like MLB.tv, the cable companies have a customer base for at least a few more years.

[vdeane]

there comes a point where you start to figure "if you have to pay for all these different services to get everything, then internet streaming has become the new cable".

The statement is true.  And this, from someone who works for a cable company.  Landline phone is on life support (Lifeline quasi-pun not intended), and cable TV would probably be dead if it weren't for (1) DVRs, which people love, and (2) the inability of customers to only subscribe to the individual channels they actually care about.

FWIW, our family only has internet service.  We watch everything on DVD/Blu-Ray, Netflix, or Amazon.  We have one of those Wal-Mart $1 digital converters from a few years ago, but that's just to plug in during tornado warnings and the Olympics–the only two things we care about watching live.

I'd also add "TV shows that are only available to legally stream with a cable subscription".

[Scott5114]

FWIW, our family only has internet service.  We watch everything on DVD/Blu-Ray, Netflix, or Amazon.  We have one of those Wal-Mart $1 digital converters from a few years ago, but that's just to plug in during tornado warnings and the Olympics–the only two things we care about watching live.

We're in the the same boat, so for severe weather I paid a one-time fee of $80 for a Windows program called GRLevel3 that allows me to download Doppler data in real time. Basically, it does the same thing as your weatherman's Doppler graphics package does: lets you zoom in on areas of interest at will, switch between reflectivity and velocity (plus a bunch of other things I have no idea how to interpret), displays warning polygons, etc. That combined with live-streaming from KWTV, plus a Midland NOAA radio for power outages, keeps us covered.

[slorydn1]

I looked into the cord-cutting thing but quickly dropped the idea. I watch so much sports, most of it local teams (plus F1), that there wasn't a viable easy alternative.

Same here, and for the same reasons.

I ended up completely in the other direction. I have DirecTV for the TV portion, with pretty much every channel imaginable. I like sports, wife and mom like movies and the HBO shows, teenager likes what he likes, (etc). So we pretty much have to have it all. I still would have had digital cable, probably, had Suddenlink not taken over the Cox franchise in my area and refused to carry NFL Network and the Speed Channel HD back in the late 2000's. We switched to DirecTV then.

I still am stuck with Suddenlink for my internet, though. There was really no way around it-DSL too expensive and not really all that fast in my area. My internet is very fast, and I have no data limit but I am paying extra to not have that data limit.

I may end up going back to Suddenlink for the cable (bundle) now that HD channel carriage isn't an issue any more, I can probably save a significant amount of money over what I am paying now by having it split between 2 companies.

[sparker]

Here in San Jose it's functionally all but impossible to not use either cable or dish service for TV needs; we've got Comcast up here, but unfortunately my home sits at the very end of one particular cable branch, so sometimes the signal's a bit weak (you can tell this even if you're not watching TV, because the cable modem online indicator starts flashing).  However, using the cable for FM reception -- yeah, I know, everyone streams these days, but I happen to like the local college stations, which seem to have the only decent playlists around -- isn't really an option, as the FM signal on cable (squeezed between channels 6 & 7 on the VHF band) is weak to the point of being negligible.  I solved that problem with an omnidirectional antenna hooked up to my tuner, which is analog rather than digital so I can tune off-center if I need to.  That seems to work -- but I'm still at the mercy of Comcast's end-of-the-line signal for all TV needs (occasionally obviating it with Netflix helps) -- glad I'm not a TV addict!

[1995hoo]

I looked into the cord-cutting thing but quickly dropped the idea. I watch so much sports, most of it local teams (plus F1), that there wasn't a viable easy alternative.

Same here, and for the same reasons.

I ended up completely in the other direction. I have DirecTV for the TV portion, with pretty much every channel imaginable. I like sports, wife and mom like movies and the HBO shows, teenager likes what he likes, (etc). So we pretty much have to have it all. I still would have had digital cable, probably, had Suddenlink not taken over the Cox franchise in my area and refused to carry NFL Network and the Speed Channel HD back in the late 2000's. We switched to DirecTV then.

....

I've had DirecTV since 2001, although I don't have the pay movie channels because we wouldn't watch them enough to make it worth it. One motivation for keeping it, aside from the sports programming, is that my wife (we got married in 2010) is slow to adjust to a new system and takes a long time to learn channel numbers and the like. She's used to DirecTV now, so I'm not inclined to change. Plus I had bad experiences with Cox years ago and the other available provider is Verizon FIOS and the last time I investigated, their DVR was inadequate compared to the DirecTV Genie and several of the channels I watch were on higher tiers that I didn't want.

[vdeane]

Verizon tried to sell me on TV when I got my internet but I didn't want to have to go through a separate box, plus why pay when broadcast is free?  I've since found out they don't even have local channels - they get ABC/NBC/CBS from NYC.