Hi, all.

I have a legacy indoor attic aerial right now, an old Group A job.
Technically, it's no good for Ch5 ( Ch67 here ) or most of the digital
multiplexes ( up to Ch52 )

However, I get away with it because the local main transmitter ( Durris ) is
only 14km away, very clear line-of-sight. It dominates the view from my
living room window, I can see the full mast, bottom to top. There's no
multi-path either. So a damp piece of string would work OK for me.

We have an attic conversion coming up, and I need to move the aerial.
I'd like to make a decent job of it, and plan to put up a decent external
aerial, possibly FM and DAB ones too.
It will need to be a wideband ( group W ) for the time being.
I don't need high gain, nor do I need extreme directionality to cancel
multi-path.
( in fact, high gain woud prolly saturate device inputs! )

From my initial googling, basic models by

Antiference XG10:
http://www.tvaerials.com/product.aspx?productid=544

Triax:
http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Aerials/UHF%20Aerials/QR%20Aerials.aspx?productId={3BA3978E-865B-4925-8BCE-937908E87968}&Tab=0

Or Blake or Televes would probably fit the bill.

Is there any clear winner in this category?


I was also considering a distribution system like the Triax DDU
http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Domestic%20Distribution%20Products/Domestic%20Distribution%20Unit%20(DDU).aspx?produc tId={7B4B88CA-78D9-46CB-8645-561513D1A9FD}&Tab=0

Any comments on that?
The Triax website looks like they produce competent gear.


--
Ron

"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
...
Hi, all.

I have a legacy indoor attic aerial right now, an old Group A job.
Technically, it's no good for Ch5 ( Ch67 here ) or most of the digital
multiplexes ( up to Ch52 )

However, I get away with it because the local main transmitter ( Durris )
is
only 14km away, very clear line-of-sight. It dominates the view from my
living room window, I can see the full mast, bottom to top. There's no
multi-path either. So a damp piece of string would work OK for me.

We have an attic conversion coming up, and I need to move the aerial.
I'd like to make a decent job of it, and plan to put up a decent external
aerial, possibly FM and DAB ones too.
It will need to be a wideband ( group W ) for the time being.
I don't need high gain, nor do I need extreme directionality to cancel
multi-path.
( in fact, high gain woud prolly saturate device inputs! )

From my initial googling, basic models by

Antiference XG10:
http://www.tvaerials.com/product.aspx?productid=544

If you don't want high gain then an XG10 is the last thing you need!

(kim)

From my initial googling, basic models by

Antiference XG10:
http://www.tvaerials.com/product.aspx?productid=544


If you don't want high gain then an XG10 is the last thing you need!

(kim)


OK, that's a good start.
So what *do* I want?

--
Ron

I'd continue with a loft aerial if it really is working well enough. It will
last much much longer than an outdoor aerial.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:21:00 -0000, "Ron Lowe"
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS mused:

From my initial googling, basic models by

Antiference XG10:
http://www.tvaerials.com/product.aspx?productid=544


If you don't want high gain then an XG10 is the last thing you need!

(kim)


OK, that's a good start.
So what *do* I want?

The Triax QR10 is a decent 'no frills' aerial. I've personally had no
trouble with them in this decent reception area. Your excellent
sounding reception are should prevent no problems for it.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

"Brian Gregory [UK]" wrote in message
news
I'd continue with a loft aerial if it really is working well enough. It
will last much much longer than an outdoor aerial.


I can't, I won't have a loft :-)

--
Ron

In article , Ron Lowe
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS@?.? writes
Hi, all.

I have a legacy indoor attic aerial right now, an old Group A job.
Technically, it's no good for Ch5 ( Ch67 here ) or most of the digital
multiplexes ( up to Ch52 )

However, I get away with it because the local main transmitter ( Durris ) is
only 14km away, very clear line-of-sight. It dominates the view from my
living room window, I can see the full mast, bottom to top. There's no
multi-path either. So a damp piece of string would work OK for me.

We have an attic conversion coming up, and I need to move the aerial.
I'd like to make a decent job of it, and plan to put up a decent external
aerial, possibly FM and DAB ones too.
It will need to be a wideband ( group W ) for the time being.
I don't need high gain, nor do I need extreme directionality to cancel
multi-path.
( in fact, high gain woud prolly saturate device inputs! )

From my initial googling, basic models by

Antiference XG10:
http://www.tvaerials.com/product.aspx?productid=544

Triax:
http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Aeri....aspx?productI
d={3BA3978E-865B-4925-8BCE-937908E87968}&Tab=0

Or Blake or Televes would probably fit the bill.

Is there any clear winner in this category?


I was also considering a distribution system like the Triax DDU
http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Dome.../Domestic%20Di
stribution%20Unit%20(DDU).aspx?productId={7B4B88C A-78D9-46CB-
8645-561513D1A9FD}&Tab=0

Any comments on that?
The Triax website looks like they produce competent gear.



Either Antiference or Triax both good makes I personally prefer the
Triax myself..

As to FM get anything apart from the useless Halo things!....
--
Tony Sayer

"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in
:

Notwithstanding the good advice offered above, could I suggest you take
your query to uk.tech.digital-tv, speciall in view of your digital needs.

mike

"mike" wrote in message
...
"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in
:

Notwithstanding the good advice offered above, could I suggest you take
your query to uk.tech.digital-tv, speciall in view of your digital needs.

mike

Indeed. That's why it's x-posted there.....

--
Ron

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:34:42 -0000, "Ron Lowe"
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote:


"mike" wrote in message
.. .
"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in
:

Notwithstanding the good advice offered above, could I suggest you take
your query to uk.tech.digital-tv, speciall in view of your digital needs.

mike

Indeed. That's why it's x-posted there.....

You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:03:39 +0000, Marky P
wrote:


You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.

I thought they were high gain and that was the point of them?

I mean you can get a signal on a coat hanger, but it has the gain of a
dead hamster.

You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.


Yes, I'd wondered about them.

They certainly look rather sleek and elegant, but I don't really understand
their application. As you say, they are not high-gain, but AIUI, they are
very directional, and so are good in high signal strength areas, but where
rejection of multi-path is important. Using an array of them to null out
off-axis signal can improve multi-path rejection even further. Would that
be a fair summary, or am I way off beam?

Since I don't have any multi-path issues, perhaps their benifit is lost on
me.

I also don't have a good handle on what gain is appropriate for my
situation. I really don't know what would saturate the distribution amp,
and what would be reasonable. I'd need either some signal strength meter
or local knowledge to glean this. And I don't know a local installer who
I'd trust to ask. I probably need to start looking at what the neighbours
have on their roofs, assuming ( big assume! ) they have been installed by
competent installers.

--
Ron

"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in
:


Notwithstanding the good advice offered above, could I suggest you
take your query to uk.tech.digital-tv, speciall in view of your
digital needs.

mike

Indeed. That's why it's x-posted there.....

I don't understand things like x-posting :-)

All it seems to do is bring in garbage from unwanted sources, which is why
my newsreader is set up to almost bar it..

mike

mike wrote in
:


Indeed. That's why it's x-posted there.....

I don't understand things like x-posting :-)

All it seems to do is bring in garbage from unwanted sources, which is
why my newsreader is set up to almost bar it..

mike

Ooh, look my post turned up here, too.

Another reason I don't like x-posting; I could be inviting flames from all
over.

I know, I should look at the headers; frankly I prefer to look at the post

;-)

mike

I expect the Triax distribution amp is fine. It looks identical to the
Proception Starbox (http://www.tvaerials.com/product.aspx?productid=373)
that I have, or the equivalent Labgear HDU681. I think they are all much of
a muchness.


Snip


I was also considering a distribution system like the Triax DDU
http://www.triax.co.uk/Products/Domestic%20Distribution%20Products/Domestic%20Distribution%20Unit%20(DDU).aspx?produc tId={7B4B88CA-78D9-46CB-8645-561513D1A9FD}&Tab=0

Any comments on that?
The Triax website looks like they produce competent gear.


--
Ron

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:28:12 -0000, "Ron Lowe"
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote:


You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.


Yes, I'd wondered about them.

They certainly look rather sleek and elegant, but I don't really understand
their application. As you say, they are not high-gain, but AIUI, they are
very directional, and so are good in high signal strength areas, but where
rejection of multi-path is important.

The advantages of log-periodic aerials are their broad frequency
response and their excellent front-back ratio.
They aren't very directional at all however (apart from the f/b
ratio), so may be useless for certain multi-path issues.
You really have to have an idea of local problems, and be prepared to
experiment. In RL, aerials are more of an art than a science.

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
EricP wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:03:39 +0000, Marky P
wrote:


You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.

I thought they were high gain and that was the point of them?

Not high gain; 8dB gain. Point of them: Same gain across the whole uhf
band, very good front/back ratio,

I mean you can get a signal on a coat hanger, but it has the gain of a
dead hamster.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , Ron Lowe
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote:

You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.


Yes, I'd wondered about them.

They certainly look rather sleek and elegant, but I don't really
understand their application. As you say, they are not high-gain, but
AIUI, they are very directional,

A log periodic has a wide front lobe, so is not normally classed as 'very
directional'. They do have an exceptionally good front/back ratio - so are
very good at rejecting unwanted signals from the back and sides.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:39:59 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

In article ,
EricP wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:03:39 +0000, Marky P
wrote:


You also shouldn't rule out a Log Periodic aerial. Low gain, but much
more even response across the whole UHF band than a standard wideband
aerial. They're reasonably priced too.

Marky P.

I thought they were high gain and that was the point of them?

Not high gain; 8dB gain. Point of them: Same gain across the whole uhf
band, very good front/back ratio,

Ah. Cheers. might look at one then.

"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
...
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

Bill

In article ,
Ron Lowe ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote:
We have an attic conversion coming up, and I need to move the aerial.
I'd like to make a decent job of it, and plan to put up a decent
external aerial, possibly FM and DAB ones too. It will need to be a
wideband ( group W ) for the time being. I don't need high gain, nor do
I need extreme directionality to cancel multi-path. ( in fact, high
gain woud prolly saturate device inputs! )

A good DP never hurts, so if gain ain't a problem the good ol' log
periodic takes some beating.

--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Bill Wright wrote:

"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
. ..
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

To make a valid comparison with yagis, the number of "elements" quoted
for a TV log periodic needs to be divided by 2. (Because the two halves
of the same element are attached to different sub-booms, manufacturers
take it as an excuse to count them as two separate "elements".)

That said, LPs genuinely do give a very good balance between moderate
forward gain, very good side and rear rejection, and moderately low wind
loading.

For example, I'm using an LP to receive digital TV from a distant
transmitter with a high-gain preamp, while avoiding overload from the
local non-digital transmitter. The location is extremely exposed, and a
large yagi just wouldn't survive the winds we get here, but the LP gives
just the right balance of features.


--
Ian White

Ron Lowe wrote:

I have a legacy indoor attic aerial right now, an old Group A job.
Technically, it's no good for Ch5 ( Ch67 here ) or most of the digital
multiplexes ( up to Ch52 )

However, I get away with it because the local main transmitter ( Durris
) is only 14km away, very clear line-of-sight. It dominates the view
from my living room window, I can see the full mast, bottom to top.
There's no multi-path either. So a damp piece of string would work OK
for me.

We have an attic conversion coming up, and I need to move the aerial.
I'd like to make a decent job of it, and plan to put up a decent
external aerial, possibly FM and DAB ones too.
It will need to be a wideband ( group W ) for the time being.

Maybe I've misunderstood your post - when you say you're "getting away
with" a group A aerial do you mean you get a solid digital signal already?

If so, I don't see any point in shelling out on a new aerial; just stick
the one you have outside!

Cheers

Geoff

Maybe I've misunderstood your post - when you say you're "getting away
with" a group A aerial do you mean you get a solid digital signal already?

If so, I don't see any point in shelling out on a new aerial; just stick
the one you have outside!

Cheers

Geoff

You are not misreading my post, and what you say is true, but I just don't
work that way.

When I'm re-jigging something for whatever reason, I will always take the
opportunity to correct anything that was wrong with the original set-up. I
like things done right. That's why I generally have to DIY.

If aerials cost hundreds of pounds, I might have considered that.
But at sub-£50, I'd rather do it right.

--
Ron

Ron Lowe wrote:
Maybe I've misunderstood your post - when you say you're "getting
away with" a group A aerial do you mean you get a solid digital
signal already?

If so, I don't see any point in shelling out on a new aerial; just
stick the one you have outside!

Cheers

Geoff

You are not misreading my post, and what you say is true, but I just
don't work that way.

When I'm re-jigging something for whatever reason, I will always take
the opportunity to correct anything that was wrong with the original
set-up. I like things done right. That's why I generally have to
DIY.

If aerials cost hundreds of pounds, I might have considered that.
But at sub-£50, I'd rather do it right.

Don't forget, when you install the new aerial use CT100 or similar cable.

On Feb 14, 9:43 am, "Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS
wrote:
Maybe I've misunderstood your post - when you say you're "getting away
with" a group A aerial do you mean you get a solid digital signal already?

If so, I don't see any point in shelling out on a new aerial; just stick
the one you have outside!

Cheers

Geoff

You are not misreading my post, and what you say is true, but I just don't
work that way.

When I'm re-jigging something for whatever reason, I will always take the
opportunity to correct anything that was wrong with the original set-up.

You've said there is nothing wrong with the existing setup. You're not
"getting away with it". You have a working setup for your particular
circumstances.

I
like things done right.

If it works, and can be shown to work, then...

I have an (outdoor) aerial which gave dodgy reception on Digital after
we moved the TV to another room and extended the cable (using deceint
cable). A sub £10 booster from Asda (price including a roll of el-
crappo thin coax, which I used) solved the problem. I can absolutely
guarantee that's not what would have been recommended here. Is my
solution "wrong" just because it doesn't meet someone else's idea of
perfection.

MBQ

If it works, and can be shown to work, then...

I have an (outdoor) aerial which gave dodgy reception on Digital after
we moved the TV to another room and extended the cable (using deceint
cable). A sub £10 booster from Asda (price including a roll of el-
crappo thin coax, which I used) solved the problem. I can absolutely
guarantee that's not what would have been recommended here. Is my
solution "wrong" just because it doesn't meet someone else's idea of
perfection.

MBQ


I'm *not* going to call what you did wrong, nor am I criticising anyone for
what they choose to do on their kit.
I'm just saying it's not how *I* choose to work on *my* kit.

Each to his own.

--
Ron

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:58 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
. ..
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

Bill

That's what I said! I am heavily influenced by you, Bill :-)

Marky P.

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:58 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
.. .
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

Bill

That's what I said! I am heavily influenced by you, Bill :-)

Marky P.


Yes, thanks to you both.
I think I'll give that a whirl.

Just got to sort out the mast arrangement now...

--
Ron

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Ron Lowe"
ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote:


"Marky P" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:58 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
. ..
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

Bill

That's what I said! I am heavily influenced by you, Bill :-)

Marky P.


Yes, thanks to you both.
I think I'll give that a whirl.

Just got to sort out the mast arrangement now...

Well, I used a 1" mast for a Blake LP aerial, but Bill said it may
fall down in the next breeze, so go for a 1.25" one.

Marky P.

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:58 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
.. .
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

Bill

That's what I said! I am heavily influenced by you, Bill :-)

Oh dear. Let's hope it stops at technical matters. I wouldn't want to lead
you astray in other respects. At present I am heavily influenced by various
real ales under which I am under the influence of. Sho to shpeak.

Bill (as far as I can tell)

"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
...
You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

I think I'll give that a whirl.

Oh do be careful with that thing!

Bill

"Marky P" wrote in message
...
Well, I used a 1" mast for a Blake LP aerial, but Bill said it may
fall down in the next breeze, so go for a 1.25" one.

No, it won't fall down in the next breeze. That's not what I said. I said it
was a bit marginal. All that will happen is that over a period of time the
mast will sway and flex in the wind more than is good for it. Eventually it
will fatigue and snap. Strangely it will probably do that on a still day.
Unless there's a phenomonal wind it will last for years before it goes. You
see, we have to assume that there will be a phenomonal wind, otherwise if
there is one we'd be up **** creek with no means of manually propelling the
vessel.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes

"Marky P" wrote in message
.. .
Well, I used a 1" mast for a Blake LP aerial, but Bill said it may
fall down in the next breeze, so go for a 1.25" one.

No, it won't fall down in the next breeze. That's not what I said. I said it
was a bit marginal. All that will happen is that over a period of time the
mast will sway and flex in the wind more than is good for it. Eventually it
will fatigue and snap. Strangely it will probably do that on a still day.
Unless there's a phenomonal wind it will last for years before it goes. You
see, we have to assume that there will be a phenomonal wind, otherwise if
there is one we'd be up **** creek with no means of manually propelling the
vessel.

Bill


When you're up **** creek, the last thing you want to do is literally
propel the vessel 'manually'!
Ian.
--

In message , Bill Wright
writes
Oh dear. Let's hope it stops at technical matters. I wouldn't want to lead
you astray in other respects. At present I am heavily influenced by various
real ales under which I am under the influence of. Sho to shpeak.

Bill (as far as I can tell)


That's easy for you to say.
--
Ian

In article , Marky P
writes
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:58 -0000, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS wrote in message
.. .
Hi, all.

You need a log periodic, The Blake 26 element one is very good.

Bill

That's what I said! I am heavily influenced by you, Bill :-)

Marky P.


I'd add to Bill's recommendations. A log is a much better wideband
aerial than a Yagi which isn't a natural wideband animal at all, its a
real compromise.

Yagi's are fine for hi gain narrowband applications. Even the aerial
grouping in the UK there're falling off at the extremities of the
channel range.

One of they and a good CT100 grade cable should make for a quality
installation.......
--
Tony Sayer

In article om,
writes
On Feb 14, 9:43 am, "Ron Lowe" ronATlowe-famlyDOTmeDOTukSPURIOUS
wrote:
Maybe I've misunderstood your post - when you say you're "getting away
with" a group A aerial do you mean you get a solid digital signal already?

If so, I don't see any point in shelling out on a new aerial; just stick
the one you have outside!

Cheers

Geoff

You are not misreading my post, and what you say is true, but I just don't
work that way.

When I'm re-jigging something for whatever reason, I will always take the
opportunity to correct anything that was wrong with the original set-up.

You've said there is nothing wrong with the existing setup. You're not
"getting away with it". You have a working setup for your particular
circumstances.

I
like things done right.

If it works, and can be shown to work, then...

I have an (outdoor) aerial which gave dodgy reception on Digital after
we moved the TV to another room and extended the cable (using deceint
cable). A sub £10 booster from Asda (price including a roll of el-
crappo thin coax, which I used) solved the problem. I can absolutely
guarantee that's not what would have been recommended here. Is my
solution "wrong" just because it doesn't meet someone else's idea of
perfection.

MBQ


Yep.. Any old bit of metal will "work" as an aerial, but some old bits
of metal will work better then others especially when hewn in the
correct shapes.

I've heard this argument many times and if it works OK for you and your
happy with it who am I to argue.

Except that some aerial directivity and gain in-hand never goes amiss
especially for low power TX working and CCI conditions......
--
Tony Sayer