HDTV antenna question

[bctbct]

There is a new HD antenna on the market that looks like a picture frame and sits on the top of your TV

Someone asked me if they have a HD TV with a built in tuner, they are on digital HD service, would this antenna do them any good? This is on a top of the line Sony.

My thinking is that if you pay for HD service and digital cable that is going to be the best picture avail. and that a $40 antenna is probably not going to do them any good.

What do you think? I think they should drop the HD service and just use the antenna.

 

[RossMAN]

OTA > compressed cable

However a traditional roof mounted antenna is usually better than rabbit ears.

 

[QED]

It all depends.

As RossMAN said, OTA HD is typically better than cable or satellite HD-- the providers have a limited amount of bandwidth in which to squeeze all of their digital channels.

However, cable and satellite usually have premium HD channels you cannot pick up OTA-- such as DiscoveryHD, INHD, INHD2, or HDNet. And for most providers the price difference between standard digital programming and HD programming is small to none.

If you only watch your local channels and you can get good reception where you live using an indoor or rooftop antenna, than OTA only would be the way to go.

 

[Staples]

I paid $35 (and it is cheaper now) for a HD OTA reception and I can pick up all the channels that are broadcast in this city. So you can get a decent antenna for $40.

Dropping cable if you can is a good thing but you will only get the broadcast channels like NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, CW and recording them may not be so easy if you are used to your cable company DVR. I have a media PC and I have no problem recording them but it was not as cheap as the cable company's DVR.

 

[RossMAN]

Originally posted by: QED
It all depends.

As RossMAN said, OTA HD is typically better than cable or satellite HD-- the providers have a limited amount of bandwidth in which to squeeze all of their digital channels.

However, cable and satellite usually have premium HD channels you cannot pick up OTA-- such as DiscoveryHD, INHD, INHD2, or HDNet. And for most providers the price difference between standard digital programming and HD programming is small to none.

If you only watch your local channels and you can get good reception where you live using an indoor or rooftop antenna, than OTA only would be the way to go.

I would go OTA but we'd miss Discovery HD Theater, Animal Planet and Food Network.

 

[Shadowknight]

Avoid buying anything that markets itself as a "HDTV antenna." Standard rabbit ear will get you channels 1-18, and a standard UHF antenna will get you the rest. I have an RCA UHF/VHF combo with built in amplifier that works perfectly fine. Slapping "HDTV Antenna" on the box is just an excuse to charge you more.

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
OTA > compressed cable

However a traditional roof mounted antenna is usually better than rabbit ears.

Winnar.

 

[bctbct]

I guess the main question they have is would adding this antenna to the TV do anything since they pay for HDTV. For some reason they seem to think that by adding this antenna they would be improving their reception.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: bctbct
I guess the main question they have is would adding this antenna to the TV do anything since they pay for HDTV. For some reason they seem to think that by adding this antenna they would be improving their reception.

If they mean will getting an HDTV antenna improve their digital cable picture quality, the answer is a resounding no.

An HDTV antenna (actually HDTV antennas are just regular TV antennas-- there is absolutely nothing special about them) will only aid receiving HD channels broadcast over the air (OTA)-- usually just your local channels.

 

[Staples]

It would not help any. The antenna picks up over the air signals, it does not somehow boost your cable line.

 

[bctbct]

Ok so the major network channels (locals) would not show any improvement?

Having seen this TV its like watching a DVD so WTF.