IbeDavid wrote:
Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Since you say "distant signals" I assume you are using a TV antenna, not
a cable.

I don't think you'll successfully remove much of the "snow" from distant
signals with an amplifier.

What they are good for is boosting up a cable signal which you are going
to then split into several long runs throughout a building.

Just my .02, but you might consider buying one in the right place,
trying it for a night, and returning it the next day for a refund if it
doesn't help any.

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

IbeDavid wrote:
Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .
Hi,
How do you receive the signal, with external antenna array on a tower or
little rabbit ears indoor? Signal amp. boost signal as well as noise
level. Theory wise betwee 12db and 20db is very different since db is
exponential expression. 3 db is 2 times. If I were you I'd improve
antenna, if you must use amp, it better be mounted on the mast, not at
the TV end. Power to the amp can be fed thru coax.

On Nov 15, 9:00 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
IbeDavid wrote:
Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Hi,
How do you receive the signal, with external antenna array on a tower or
little rabbit ears indoor? Signal amp. boost signal as well as noise
level. Theory wise betwee 12db and 20db is very different since db is
exponential expression. 3 db is 2 times. If I were you I'd improve
antenna, if you must use amp, it better be mounted on the mast, not at
the TV end. Power to the amp can be fed thru coax.


Also I hope what you're trying to receive is digital, because NTSC is
scheduled to be turned off in Feb 2009. Not sure how much good an
amp will do with ATSC, as it's digital and you either have a perfect
picture or big break ups, not the usual snow, ghost, etc issues.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Amplifiers for antennas only work when they are mounted at the
antenna. Quality amps will be weather proofed and have an optional
FM trap that can be switched in if you have a local FM station that
could interfere with channel 6.

Amplifiers other than what is used on an antenna would only makes
sense if you were going to split the signal multiple times.

12 db or 20db makes no difference. If 12db isn't enough then something
is very very wrong in your set up.

wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:00 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

IbeDavid wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Hi,
How do you receive the signal, with external antenna array on a tower or
little rabbit ears indoor? Signal amp. boost signal as well as noise
level. Theory wise betwee 12db and 20db is very different since db is
exponential expression. 3 db is 2 times. If I were you I'd improve
antenna, if you must use amp, it better be mounted on the mast, not at
the TV end. Power to the amp can be fed thru coax.



Also I hope what you're trying to receive is digital, because NTSC is
scheduled to be turned off in Feb 2009. Not sure how much good an
amp will do with ATSC, as it's digital and you either have a perfect
picture or big break ups, not the usual snow, ghost, etc issues.
Hi,
Digital by nature has more redundancy(via software, hardware). Signal
format is signal is different (modulation method), it's still RF carrier.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

It is really the antenna that determines performance on weak signals.

You need enough signal from the antenna to operate just one TV down
inside the house.

A booster amplifier can compensate for splitting the antenna signal
cable run into extra cable runs to more locations - as in more TV's
than just the one.

Ross

On Nov 15, 10:49 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:00 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:

IbeDavid wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Hi,
How do you receive the signal, with external antenna array on a tower or
little rabbit ears indoor? Signal amp. boost signal as well as noise
level. Theory wise betwee 12db and 20db is very different since db is
exponential expression. 3 db is 2 times. If I were you I'd improve
antenna, if you must use amp, it better be mounted on the mast, not at
the TV end. Power to the amp can be fed thru coax.

Also I hope what you're trying to receive is digital, because NTSC is
scheduled to be turned off in Feb 2009. Not sure how much good an
amp will do with ATSC, as it's digital and you either have a perfect
picture or big break ups, not the usual snow, ghost, etc issues.

Hi,
Digital by nature has more redundancy(via software, hardware). Signal
format is signal is different (modulation method), it's still RF carrier.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

It is really the antenna that determines performance on weak signals.

In theory but in practice you get to much attenuation and noise
introduction from the transmission line. An amplifier mounted at
the pre-noise source (antenna) goes a long way in nullifying these
negative factors.

On Nov 15, 8:00 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
IbeDavid wrote:
Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Hi,
How do you receive the signal, with external antenna array on a tower or
little rabbit ears indoor? Signal amp. boost signal as well as noise
level. Theory wise betwee 12db and 20db is very different since db is
exponential expression. 3 db is 2 times. If I were you I'd improve
antenna, if you must use amp, it better be mounted on the mast, not at
the TV end. Power to the amp can be fed thru coax.

REPLY: Everyeone, Thanks. ITs a crankup outdoor roof mounted
Wineguard Antennae on my RV for VHF tv stations. Inside, there is a
red button which i press that feeds 12 vdc power into the coax
cable ...so....i assume THIS is the amp which came with the unit
(??). How can i pull in weak signals, better, with what i have ?
Thanks, Dave.

On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

REPLY: Everyeone, Thanks. ITs a crankup outdoor roof mounted
Wineguard Antennae on my RV for VHF tv stations. Inside, there is a
red button which i press that feeds 12 vdc power into the coax
cable ...so....i assume THIS is the amp which came with the unit
(??). How can i pull in weak signals, better, with what i have ?
Thanks, Dave.

In order of benefit. Get a taller antenna. Get a bigger antenna.

wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.
Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.



nope, if your analog sucks, so will your digital
If you get a viewable analog signal clear to slightly snowy, it will be
good enough for a digital signal. If you get an unwatchable analog
signal, your digital will blink out or not lock up

I use a remote style, amp is out at antenna with a plug in box closer to
the tv, works great

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:49:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

You miss the point. With a distant weak broadcast that shows much
snow but is still viewable in NTSC his ability to receive that same
weak broadcast in ATSC will be less. ATSC will work with a lower
signal to noise ratio than NTSC but it has a minimum requirement
before it suddenly stops working. NTSC is different. It slowly fades
into snow.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:58:02 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

IbeDavid wrote:
Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Since you say "distant signals" I assume you are using a TV antenna, not
a cable.

I don't think you'll successfully remove much of the "snow" from distant
signals with an amplifier.


It probably won't, since to be affective an amplifier needs to be
installed at a point where the signal is clean.

What they are good for is boosting up a cable signal which you are going
to then split into several long runs throughout a building.


Yes, where the amp comes BEFORE the signal loss. I do use one in my
cable distribution system. It's fed from a good cable TV signal and is
to compensate for the loss caused by having several loads. It would
not help if I had a noisy signal coming in.

Just my .02, but you might consider buying one in the right place,
trying it for a night, and returning it the next day for a refund if it
doesn't help any.

Jeff
--
39 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

An amplifier could help with loss in a long lead in, if placed right
next to the antenna (they make amps for this, that get power through
the coax). An amplifier WILL NOT clear up an already noisy signal. You
may need a better (or at least properly placed) antenna.

The situation is complicated, and the amp MAY still help a little. You
could try one that can be returned to the store. Antenna aiming is
more likely to help.
--
39 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:10:35 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

On Nov 15, 8:00 pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
IbeDavid wrote:
Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Hi,
How do you receive the signal, with external antenna array on a tower or
little rabbit ears indoor? Signal amp. boost signal as well as noise
level. Theory wise betwee 12db and 20db is very different since db is
exponential expression. 3 db is 2 times. If I were you I'd improve
antenna, if you must use amp, it better be mounted on the mast, not at
the TV end. Power to the amp can be fed thru coax.

REPLY: Everyeone, Thanks. ITs a crankup outdoor roof mounted
Wineguard Antennae on my RV for VHF tv stations. Inside, there is a
red button which i press that feeds 12 vdc power into the coax
cable ...so....i assume THIS is the amp which came with the unit
(??). How can i pull in weak signals, better, with what i have ?
Thanks, Dave.

Don't expect the amp to help much. Are you sure the antenna is aimed
the best it can be?
--
39 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:50:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

Amplifiers for antennas only work when they are mounted at the
antenna. Quality amps will be weather proofed and have an optional
FM trap that can be switched in if you have a local FM station that
could interfere with channel 6.

Amplifiers other than what is used on an antenna would only makes
sense if you were going to split the signal multiple times.

12 db or 20db makes no difference. If 12db isn't enough then something
is very very wrong in your set up.

Note that if you're having problems, it could be caused by a
too-strong signal rather than a too-weak one. Then, you need to remove
an amp or add an attenuator (Radio Shack may still sell those, as well
as amps).

BTW, a difference of 3db is a 2:1 power ratio.
--
39 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:57:06 GMT, (RMD) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

It is really the antenna that determines performance on weak signals.

You need enough signal from the antenna to operate just one TV down
inside the house.

A booster amplifier can compensate for splitting the antenna signal
cable run into extra cable runs to more locations - as in more TV's
than just the one.


Although the signal does need to be of adequate quality. If you can
not get a decent picture on a single TV located at the antenna, no
amount of amplification will help.

Ross
--
39 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:10:28 -0500, wrote:


It is really the antenna that determines performance on weak signals.

In theory but in practice you get to much attenuation and noise
introduction from the transmission line. An amplifier mounted at
the pre-noise source (antenna) goes a long way in nullifying these
negative factors.

True, although is seemed as if the OP already had a noisy signal at
the antenna, so had no way to put an amp pre-noise source.
--
39 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups"

On Nov 16, 11:12 am, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:49:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

You miss the point. With a distant weak broadcast that shows much
snow but is still viewable in NTSC his ability to receive that same
weak broadcast in ATSC will be less.

You're making assumptions. The OP never stated how much snow he had,
exactly how weak the signal is, or even if it's VHF, UHF or both that
he has a problem with. If he's watching just VHF, his reception
could be different going to ATSC because in most areas it's in the UHF
band, while existing major broadcasting is in VHF. And if he's got
UHF with a bit of snow, ATSC could work just fine. ATSC has error
correction, so it can produce a complete picture, even with some
signal noise, where as with NTSC it appears as snow.


ATSC will work with a lower
signal to noise ratio than NTSC but it has a minimum requirement
before it suddenly stops working.

NTSC is different. It slowly fades
into snow.

Exactly my point. If he has a picture with some snow, ATSC could
solve his problem and with the demise of NTSC, he has to do something
about it in another year anyway. Also, an amplifier is not going to
solve a signal to noise ratio problem. It just amplifies the total
signal, noise included.

What's the problem with addressing the conversion to ATSC before
screwing around with a system that is going away in a year?

On Nov 16, 11:03 am, yourname wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.
Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

nope, if your analog sucks, so will your digital
If you get a viewable analog signal clear to slightly snowy, it will be
good enough for a digital signal. If you get an unwatchable analog
signal, your digital will blink out or not lock up

So, when did you see what his TV looks like that you know it isn't
just slightly snowy? How do you know which band ATSC is on in his
area? Is it UHF or VHF? For all you know, he has an old crappy
VHF antenna and ATSC is UHF in his area, which means what he's
experiencing now has little relation to what he will have when he
transitions to ATSC.


I use a remote style, amp is out at antenna with a plug in box closer to
the tv, works great

And BTW, an amp won't fix a signal to noise ratio problem.

wrote:
You miss the point. With a distant weak broadcast that shows much
snow but is still viewable in NTSC his ability to receive that same
weak broadcast in ATSC will be less. ATSC will work with a lower
signal to noise ratio than NTSC but it has a minimum requirement
before it suddenly stops working. NTSC is different. It slowly fades
into snow.

It all depends on your tolerance for snow. You can get a watchable but
snowy picture from a distant NTSC station that wouldn't even register
on an ATSC set.

--
Angry American flags attack Hillary Clinton!

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:12 am, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:49:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

You miss the point. With a distant weak broadcast that shows much
snow but is still viewable in NTSC his ability to receive that same
weak broadcast in ATSC will be less.

You're making assumptions. The OP never stated how much snow he had,
exactly how weak the signal is, or even if it's VHF, UHF or both that
he has a problem with.

He said:
"Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv signals. Thanks ."

I assume he must be seeing enough snow to bother posting.

snip

What's the problem with addressing the conversion to ATSC before
screwing around with a system that is going away in a year?

Maybe he doesn't want to wait. Maybe he wants to gather some
info about what to expect.

So you are telling him his snowy "distant tv signal" will magically
clear up. I'm telling him that his former snowy picture will start to
cut up unless he changes something.

On Nov 16, 4:11 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:30:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 16, 11:12 am, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:49:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 16, 9:06 am, wrote:
Yes, it's still RF. But my main point was that if he's trying to
improve an analog signal, it may not be worth the trouble as it's
going to be gone in a year. I'd be figuring out how to transition to
ATSC first, as that may solve his problem. The reception conditions
he has for digital may be different.

Amplifiers and antennas are not smart enough to distinguish between
analog and digital signals.

You miss the point. In a year the analog will be gone and with ATSC
his reception right now may be fine WITHOUT needing an AMP. Anyone
screwing around with improving NTSC reception should take that into
account.

You miss the point. With a distant weak broadcast that shows much
snow but is still viewable in NTSC his ability to receive that same
weak broadcast in ATSC will be less.

You're making assumptions. The OP never stated how much snow he had,
exactly how weak the signal is, or even if it's VHF, UHF or both that
he has a problem with.

He said:
"Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv signals. Thanks ."

I assume he must be seeing enough snow to bother posting.

snip

What's the problem with addressing the conversion to ATSC before
screwing around with a system that is going away in a year?

Maybe he doesn't want to wait. Maybe he wants to gather some
info about what to expect.

Wait for what? ATSC is up and running now. All I'm suggesting is
before spending time and money trying to fix NTSC reception, he should
at least be aware that it's going bye bye in a year.





So you are telling him his snowy "distant tv signal" will magically
clear up. I'm telling him that his former snowy picture will start to
cut up unless he changes something.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



I never told him his reception will magically clear up. However,
depending on the location, it is possible he could receive ATSC OK and
since he's going to have to do that in a year anyway, moving to
digital now is an option. I've seen people online report that their
reception improved and they have good reception with ATSC, where
before they had snow, ghosting, etc..

And IMO, it's unlikely buying an amplifier is going to do any good.
He's in a mobile home with probably a 10 ft cable from the antenna to
the TV, not in a big house with 5 TV's. If the signal from the
antenna was any good with decent SNR he should be able to receive it
on a single set.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:57:06 GMT, (RMD) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28 -0800 (PST), IbeDavid
wrote:

Motorola has one thats 12 db. for $10 . Another brand is 20 db for
$18. Theres a bunch of specs on the back of both..but i have no idea
what they mean. When buying one, what do u want in one when price is
really secondary ? Looking for a clearer picture from distant tv
signals. Thanks .

It is really the antenna that determines performance on weak signals.

You need enough signal from the antenna to operate just one TV down
inside the house.

A booster amplifier can compensate for splitting the antenna signal
cable run into extra cable runs to more locations - as in more TV's
than just the one.

Ross

What I was meaning to say, but didn't say it very well, is that the
signal amplifier can really only compensate for cable/splitter losses.

It won't pull a good signal out of a noisy signal.

Only a good well-sited antenna can make a clean signal in the first
place.

Ross

(RMD) wrote:

What I was meaning to say, but didn't say it very well, is that the
signal amplifier can really only compensate for cable/splitter losses.

It won't pull a good signal out of a noisy signal.

A signal is only noisy in the context of how it is received. You have
to look at the whole system - the antenna, the feedline and
distribution, and the receiver. All of them contribute to the system
noise figure. A properly placed amplifier (meaning at the antenna) can
overcome the noise contributed by the rest of the system. But if you
don't have enough signal to overcome the noise in the amplifier, it
won't make any difference how much you amplify. The only solution
there is to put in a better antenna, or get an amplifier with a lower
noise figure. At some point, the best amplifier in the world won't
overcome the lack of signal from an inadequate antenna.

I don't own any really new TV equipment - it's all 5-15 years old, but
there are definite differences in the various units' sensitivity. I
suspect that is true in current equipment also. For quite a while
receivers have primarily been designed to work with the higher signal
levels of cable or satellite receiver signals, with off-the-air use
being secondary. A good amplifier will definitely improve these.

Only a good well-sited antenna can make a clean signal in the first
place.

Very true. Put up the best antenna you can - makes everything else
easier.


Roger Grady
To reply by email, remove "qlfit." from address