<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Hi Allen!</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Thanks for the
photo
– I’d still get ‘shot’! <g> As for the duplicate
message, I did receive in this packet what appears to be the
original
followed by probably the first one indicating a problem. To
assist
in troubleshooting timestamps are “Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019
09:12:04
-0800” and “Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 09:14:36 -0800”. If the
third and fourth posts duplicated the second might explain why
rejected.</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.128.1551031650.1689.mythtv-users@mythtv.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Reading the flyer on your antenna, it reads like marketing hype and not an
engineering document. Perhaps that is normal and to be expected but the
fact is that they have probably not changed physics as they claim they
have.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">As for the specs on
my DB2 antenna, yes, more fluff than substance. At the time it
looked to have decent specs, had a decent price, and would fit
between the 16” rafters. Yagis tend to be too fat! </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">As sort of a tie-in
with Jay’s reply on site recommendations I recall for some reason
being recommended a more-fringe antenna even though I’m less than
20 miles from the local stations. I’m figuring because of the
option to receive stations from adjoining markets/coverage areas.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">As far as the
brochure’s “changing physics” comment, I’m thinking not for
that price! <g></p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">You are obviously not going to do this and I would not duplicate this setup
myself. I would get one of the higher end HD Winegards. Perhaps you can
get a recommendation directly from them. Given they are close to you, I am
sure they would know which antenna would be good if you can get in touch
with technical support and not marketing.</pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">As for contacting
Winegard, sounding like getting to be a good idea, though I’m
dreading the conversation of asking for permission to have their
tech
crash here for a week or so! <joke> ...At this point I’m
still leaning towards the new Backend with the 1609 just because
gut-reaction seems to indicate a tuner sensitivity issue, though
the
suggestion of a higher-gain antenna being able to target the
incoming
signal makes sense. Maybe that was the reason the site was
advising
the fringe-type antenna?? Too many variables!!</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">All this said the market for antennas has clearly changed. HDTV is a lot
easier to receive than the old analog signals. Multipath used to give
ghosts and most people had TVs with terrible pictures. That led to the
Cable industry. But with digital, you can get a perfect signal more
easily. Equalizers can remove problems from multipath and you have less of
a constraint on the antenna. In your case with the wind and the pixelation
your new tuner might solve it or you might need a better antenna.</pre>
</blockquote>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Agree on the
antenna
market has changed. Have seen ads for ‘hidden’ antennae: one
style fits against the back of the television, others are clear
and
so barely show at all. Must use RG-187 for the lead! AFAIK the
display is only as good as its weakest link. I have used old UHF
antennae (bow-tie and circular) for testing – these seem to work
about as well as the ‘digital’ antennae – apparently they
didn’t read the hype-brochures! (The DB2 antenna in the attic does
provide a better quality signal; I was using the old antenna to
test
positioning, etc.)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Barry</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style></p>
</body>
</html>