On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:03:46 -0400, Adam Kubias
wrote:

On 2014-04-19 6:51 PM, micky wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:18:15 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:47:45 -0400, micky
wrote:

When I first** installed my large attic antenna, it got all the
Baltimore stations and most DC stations. 40 miles from here. No rabbit
ears had ever gotten more than one or two DC stations, plus the
Baltimore stations. So you're wrong.

When I lived in Clinton Md, south of DC an attic antenna got me all of
the DC stations (from northwest DC) and a fairly good picture from
Baltimore.
I went up on a 15' mast on the roof with a rotor so I could swing
around south and I could get Richmond fairly well (enough to see a
blacked out Redskin game), 100 miles away. DC and Baltimore were
crystal clear.

I'm not saying that a tower or mast isn't a good thing, but the previous
poster went far beyond saying that a tower was better than the attic.
He said regarding an antenna: "Indoor; even in the attic; is a waste of
money", and that's not true. " Just go for a proper tower unless you
live in a city." so I think he was recommending a self-standing tower,
wasn't even satisfied with a mast.
I'm satisfied with a mast too. A shingled attic will take out about 30%
of reception. Why do anything to a maximum of 70% efficiency?

Cheaper, quicker, easier, safer, less maintenance, do-able in a rental
house, and in many, most, or maybe almost all cases fully sufficient to
get all the stations one wants.

Far quicker, easier, and cheaper.

If it is insufficient, nothing stops one from installing a mast or tower
later. But one has to ask himself if that added 30% will bring in
more stations or will it just reach a doughnut shaped area of farmland
beyond the city whose stations you get with the attic antenna and 20
miles short of the next city.