reply to BF69
Re: Will never cut the cord
said by BF69:That's not true. Digital TV is VERY directional and you need line of site to towers. As a rule, if you have issues, go with bigger antenna's and post them higher up. In some cases, a large mast is required. But in many cases, line of site kills it for many. Also depends on the area. Here in Albuquerque, the towers are all on top of the Sandia mountains that tower over the entire city. In this case, the majority of people can get most if not all the OTA stations. In the old days, (analog) you could get weak stations with static, etc.. With digital, its all or nothing. You need like a 80 percent signal strength. When it drops below that, you get zero, nada, nothing. said by IowaCowboy:
The OTA signals around here are unusable, especially after the DTV conversion. My mother's cousin in Northampton (MA) tried various antennas (including amplified antennas, both with a converter box and newer digital TV) and could not get reception of the channels she got before the DTV switchover.
I tried picking up broadcast TV at my house and the signals are unusable as well as there is too much interference in the area (Springfield MA, urban area).
We've had this discussion before. The vast majority of people get BETTER reception with OTA now that it's digital. And also unless you're situation is unusual in your area you should get in OTA. I doubt you tired very hard.
Put in your info and a height of 30 feet and then post the results and prove me wrong.
But I agree, if it works, its better then analog. We are talking about total unfiltered HD here. In many cases, looking better then cable or satellite since they may compress it further. With OTA, its the RAW feed and I like it.