Aussie Made VHF/UHF Combination Outdoor TV Antenna $79.50 (1/2 Price) Delivered @ DSE

Related Stores

Dick Smith / Kogan

Marketplace

• 

  samfisher5986 on 08/08/2013 - 21:40

  -4

  Doesn't seem like a good choice, I'm pretty sure analogue/digital TV antennas are worse then just digital antennas.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 08/08/2013 - 22:10

    Digital antenna?

    There is no such thing as a digital TV antenna.

    http://www.digitaltelevision.com.au/high-definition/hdtv-ant…

    • 

      altomic on 08/08/2013 - 22:24

      +2

      No Such Thing As an HDTV Antenna

    • 

      INFIDEL on 08/08/2013 - 23:01

      +3

      There is no such thing as a digital TV antenna.

      Antennas are designed to receive specific frequencies, and digital & analogue signal use slightly different transmission frequencies.

      So antennas are designed for analogue are different to those designed for digital tv frequencies.

      The longer elements for old ABC transmission are not found on antennas designed for digital reception. These lower frequency elements introduced interference. So you don't want those. These long straight elements are still found on antennas currently sold, as older stock were designed for both analogue & digital frequencies. As analogue is almost at an end, avoid installing these.

      So there are antennas designed for digital TV reception, commonly called "digital antennas". These are designed to exclude unwanted (analogue) frequencies.

      But analogue antennas will receive the digital signals, hence the idea that there is no such thing as a digital antenna - but it's not optimised for digital transmission frequencies & may have issues with electrical interference (from poorly maintained motors etc & transmissions moving onto the vacated analogue spectrum).

      [I removed the last 2 long elements from my 35 year old analogue antenna. Despite being in a poor analogue reception area (behind a hill with no line of sight to towers), digital reception is impressive.]

      • 

        Russ on 09/08/2013 - 00:38

        +5

        Sorry, I call BS on this.

        Digital and analogue do NOT use "slightly different transmission frequencies". Digital stations transmitted on different CHANNELS, back when both analog and digital were being transmitted at the same time. This is because if you transmitted them on the same channel, interference would occur and both signals would be unusable because of the interference. TV channels in Australia are 7MHz wide, irrespective of whether they are digital or analog. For example, channel 6 is from 174MHz to 181MHz.

        An antenna, at the basic level, is just a piece of wire, and it turns a radio wave into an electric signal. You can adjust the length and direction of the wire to better "collect" the radio wave - which is the idea behind "rabbit ears" antennas. If you want the wire to only receive a particular frequency of radio waves, or a particular range of frequencies, then you can add other pieces of metal near it, in particular patterns and spacings. The simplest patterns and spacings were worked out about a century ago, and that's why TV antennas normally follow the same three or four standard designs.

        As for your antenna's "lower frequency elements introduced interference", well that's simply bulldust. An antenna element CANNOT produce a signal, interfering or other. It can only ASSIST your antenna to receive a particular frequency or range of frequencies, or to REJECT some frequencies.

        If your TV antenna is 35 years old, i.e. 1978 vintage, then it pre-dates the first UHF TV transmissions in Australia (by SBS) by two years. As such, your antenna is almost certainly a VHF-only model. By removing the two longest elements, you could have made your antenna better at receiving UHF signals that your antenna was designed to reject. Many of the digital TV stations are on UHF frequencies, so that would account for your improved digital reception.

        Also, the only reason that TV antennas do not have the longer elements is because the lower radio frequencies are highly valued for things like two-way radios and similar communications. You get better distance with lower-power transmitters. So the government declared that the TV stations should move to higher frequencies, and that happened when channel 0 became channel 10, and then again when the digital stations took over from the analog stations, and again in some areas with the government's recent "retune your TV because your TV stations are moving" drive. As there aren't any TV stations using the lower channels anymore, it's pointless to include the longer antenna elements that let the antenna receive those lower channels.

        And yes, I am an electronics engineer, and I have designed transmitters, receivers and antennas.

      • 

        siuol on 09/08/2013 - 09:59

        I would like to hear about your expert advice, Russ.

        What is your view towards phased array antenna? I am currently in a house with a old style tv antenna at least 3 meters above the roof. Still my reception is poor (i.e. got some channels but not all).

        Do you think a phased array antenna with a hockey stick of about 1.8m will solve my problem?

      • 

        INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 10:04

        A seemingly confused rebuttal of my admittedly loosely worded post for a non-technical audience, posted late on my phone. But good info. Antenna design is not my strong point (frequencies, bands, channels…), so pleased to learn :-)

        You both refute & support my assertion that there is a slight difference in frequencies between old analogue & digital transmissions!

        Digital and analogue do NOT use "slightly different transmission frequencies".

        BUT…

        the only reason that TV antennas do not have the longer elements is because
        … the government declared that the TV stations should move to higher frequencies …
        As there aren't any TV stations using the lower channels anymore, it's pointless to include the longer antenna elements that let the antenna receive those lower channels.

        Isn't that basically the same as I said, that old analogue & digital transmissions are on slightly different frequencies & the longer elements are no longer necessary? Older antennas, some still being sold, do include the longer element for the older analogue transmissions. (I installed this model years ago, but promptly returned it. Long elements were same length as existing 35 year old one, before removal.)

        This antenna receives the Analogue transmission frequencies phased out or about to be…
        (lowest frequencies on Band I-II RF Channels 0-5A will no longer be used)
        spec: VHF (2, 3, 4, 5, 5A-12) 64.25 - 230MHz, UHF (21-69) 470 - 860MHz
        For capital cities, according to http://vk3khb.gak.net.au/atv/chnlchrt.html
        ABC Analogue on 64.25MHz (Channel 2) with the cessation of transmission moved to
        ABC Digital 226.5MHz (Channel 12)

        Changes 2011-13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_and_New_Zealand_tele…
        VHF (Band I & II) channels 0-2 and 5A will cease to be used for television when analogue television broadcasting ceases. [old ABC analogue broadcasts]
        Channels 0, 1 and 2 will be specifically be phased out as they are not suitable for digital television due to Radio Frequency Interference issues.
        (Television broadcasts on channels 3, 4, and 5 were discontinued in most regional areas in 1991 and 1992.)
        That is, lower frequencies centred around 48.5 - 140.5MHz (BandI-II RF Channels 0-5A) are no longer used with change over from Analogue to Digital transmissions.

        As for your assumption of my antenna installation… Separate UHF (about 20 elements) & VHF (about 10 elements, from memory) on separate masts. That was the optimal solution in this low signal location, & working great so no need to update, just maintain for the present.

        I never said I had interference on my installation - none were noticed. But interference issues were given as a partial reason for changing away from the lower frequencies (but interference to Radio or TV users?), along with the advantages to other users you state.

      • 

        INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 11:06

        +1

        Digital and analogue do NOT use "slightly different transmission frequencies" - my contention was that antennas like this one were designed at a time before frequencies were changed, including now obsolete TV transmission frequencies. Current (Digital) transmissions use a subset of the old Analogue frequencies.

        Latest antennas by this manufacturer no longer cover the lower bands, starting at Ch6, and lack the longer elements in this model.

        Information about the effect of having now unnecessary longer elements (for Bands I&II, CH2-5A) was supplied by an installer friend, and other lower quality sources, so may not be accurate ;0

      • 

        INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 13:26

        +1

        As for your antenna's "lower frequency elements introduced interference", well that's simply bulldust. An antenna element CANNOT produce a signal, interfering or other.

        There was no observable interference in my installation - I never claimed there was any.

        I never said the antenna would produce a signal by itself - thats crazy@!
        It's just a designed lump of metal!

        Rather the longer elements could (be more likely to) introduce (pick up RF) interference.
        I always thought the larger the antenna (element), the more likely to receive small RF signals. Apparently I was wrong??? But this was never my area of knowledge. So I would no longer claim any interference by the longer elements, as I was told by people working in the area.

        Seems Elec Eng has not changed since my days! Communication was the major problem I saw.

      • 

        Russ on 09/08/2013 - 21:32

        Isn't that basically the same as I said

        I too was replying late at night, so my reply wasn't as clear as it could have been, and my first sentence was rather less than diplomatic. I do apologise for that.

        I wanted to make clear that the "different frequencies" were simply different channels, not something more "different" like perhaps straddling two of the previous analog channels, or using more bandwidth. Although your later example of the ABC moving from 64.25MHz to 226.5MHz also rather rebuts a your claim that "digital & analogue signal use slightly different transmission frequencies", nearly four times the frequency is somewhat more than "slightly different", at least for the ABC. Although for most of the other TV stations had their digital channel only one channel away from their analog channel, so if that is what you meant by "slightly", I apologise for misunderstanding your intent.

        The main thing I wanted to rebut was your next line

        So antennas are designed for analogue are different to those designed for digital tv frequencies.

        The antennas on sale now, which don't have the longest elements and won't tune the lowest frequencies, were designed many years before digital existed. They were used in countries that had already moved their TV stations to higher frequencies, and are/were slightly cheaper because they use less metal and have fewer elements. They were designed for analog TV transmissions, because that's all that existed when they were designed.

        There are no TV antennas that have been "designed for digital TV frequencies", although some antennas claim that on their packaging simply to make it clear that they will work with digital TV stations. It's a less-than-precise claim, a marketing attempt to imply that existing antennas won't work properly with digital signals, and thereby sell more antennas. There have been no new TV antenna designs, other than cosmetic changes, for several decades. There have been a few novel satellite TV antennas, but that's not what people usually means when they say "TV antenna".

      • 

        Russ on 09/08/2013 - 21:55

        Rather the longer elements could (be more likely to) introduce (pick up RF) interference

        There's some truth in that, but it should be said with qualifications.

        An old antenna that can tune channels 0-5A could receive a non-TV signal in that frequency range, and pass it to your TV set. Your TV set, if properly designed (I have owned one that wasn't), should have no difficulty in ignoring such signals.

        For example, the FM radio band (88-108MHz) overlaps the frequencies of channels 3, 4 and 5. So the old antennas should be able to pick up those frequencies and feed them to the TV. And indeed they do, on an analog TV you can usually see diagonal lines or zig-zag lines on those frequencies. Sometimes you can see lines on other channels too, usually they are caused by taxi companies' two-way radios. These radio signals, although they are interfering signals that your antenna receives, don't cause a problem with the TV reception except in very rare circumstances, like living right next door to the transmitter.

        For my TV that wasn't well designed: I live in an area where I got LOTS of signal from the ABC, back when it was analog and on channel 2. I could receive it perfectly well without anything plugged into the TV's antenna socket. I needed an antenna for the other (weaker) TV stations, and when watching those stations I could still see a ghost-like image of whatever the ABC was transmitting. I solved my problem by making a small filter to attenuate the ABC frequencies only, and inserted it into the antenna lead. So if the signal is sufficiently strong, yes it can cause interference, but shouldn't on a properly designed TV.

      • 

        Russ on 09/08/2013 - 22:21

        +1

        Siuol asked

        Do you think a phased array antenna with a hockey stick of about 1.8m will solve my problem?

        There are many possible causes of bad reception of digital TV:

        • I have seen some set-top boxes that had very poor receivers, and could not receive weak signals. There are probably some TVs with the same problem.
        • your antenna may be VHF only, and some of the digital channels may be UHF
        • water may have leaked into the antenna cable at the antenna end, which often makes UHF reception marginal, even though the antenna itself may be fine
        • the cable from your TV to the wall socket may have a broken center conductor (very common), dramatically reducing the signal your TV receives, yet often some of the stronger TV stations still get through
        • there could be a splitter between your TV and the antenna, perhaps inside the roof space, sending the signal to a TV socket in another room. In some circumstances the lead to the other room can behave as a "stub filter", reducing the signal at certain frequencies and making some stations poor
        • you could be receiving a reflection from a nearby metal roof, or even one hundreds of meters away if you are on a hill, causing cancellation of the signal at some frequencies

        All of these problems have different solutions. A new antenna could solve your reception, but it may not.

        Phased-array antennas are fine, nothing wrong with using them for digital TV reception, but the ones I have seen are all UHF-only. If any of your TV stations are on VHF, you won't receive them well or maybe not at all.

        The best advice I can offer is to see what type of antennas your neighbours use, and find out if they have reception problems. If they don't have problems and you are friendly with them:

        • take your antenna lead (the one from the wall to the TV) and test it on their TV in their house. If their TV shows problems, the lead is broken
        • try your TV, in their house, with your antenna lead and using their antenna socket. If your TV works fine in their house, that narrows it down to the antenna or the antenna lead in the wall.
        • is your antenna pointed in the same direction as your neighbours TV antenna?
        • is your antenna damaged?

        Also, why is your antenna on a 3m mast? That's unusually high. Is there a building in the way?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 09/08/2013 - 22:40

        @Russ

        You are A Kindhearted person.

        Have a nice evening

      • 

        siuol on 12/08/2013 - 10:32

        Thanks Russ, your reply pointed me to the direction to look at.

        I am in Eastern suburb area of Sydney, which according to the website digitalready.gov.au, blocked by a small hill. Which might be why having a 3m mast?

        I could not see any missing elements from the existing antenna, just a mildy bent 2nd longest element.

      • 

        Russ on 12/08/2013 - 21:27

        +1

        Extra height helps with reception if you are behind a hill, but you still aren't going to receive nearly as good a signal as when your antenna can "see" the transmitter directly.

        I suggest you borrow a second antenna, or maybe get a "rabbit ears" antenna, plug it into your TV, and try pointing the antenna in different directions than straight towards the transmitters. If there is also a hill "behind" you, in the direction away from the transmitters, pointing your antenna at that might get you a reasonable reflected signal. If that doesn't work, try all directions. You might be able to fluke a reflected signal, particularly from tall buildings if there are any. If you get a better signal, call in a professional to rotate your existing antenna for you.

        If your TV is almost watchable, just with occasional problems, see if you can borrow a few set-top boxes from friends/relatives/workmates. Try them all, some may be more sensitive to weak signals than whatever you are using now.

        Failing that, you could purchase a mast-head amplifier. This amplifies the already-weak signal you are receiving, up to a level that your TV may be able to use. It has two parts: the amplifier goes at the antenna end, the power supply connects next to your TV. It powers the amplifier through your existing antenna cable.

        And if all else fails, call in an antenna company. They are often expensive, but they DO usually get the job done.

        The bent second element of your antenna is unlikely to significantly affect your reception, and even if it does, it will probably only affect one channel.

    • 

      samfisher5986 on 08/08/2013 - 23:15

      +2

      a digital antenna are those not designed to receive the analogue bands/frequencies.

      This means less interference and better reception in many circumstances as the entire antenna has been designed for those different frequencies in mind.

  • 

    INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 00:00

    +1

    Despite the negs, you are correct. Antennas optimised for digital frequencies are better than those designed for the old analogue plus digital frequencies. Old design.

    • 

      wbeer on 09/08/2013 - 00:23

      -2

      There is no distinction between analogue and digital in terms of what freq/band it needs to use/ areas using VHF or UHF bands depend on what the station in your town is transmitting.

      Brisbane unlike some other places transmits ALL stations on VHF bands (the long bits of the antenna) opposed to UHF bands (spider-like smaller bits). It did however transmit ABC(analogue) on a different VHF 'band' which i guess your antenna was not great at receiving.

      • 

        Russ on 09/08/2013 - 00:49

        +2

        You are almost correct. SBS is indeed on VHF in Brisbane, but Briz31 is in the UHF band. It is currently on 529.5MHz, UHF channel 28, which is the frequency that SBS's analog transmissions were previously on. Given that Bris31 is a community TV station, with very little money, I suspect it is quite likely they bought or were gifted SBS's old tranmitter and mast, and that's why they are on UHF 28.

      • 

        wbeer on 09/08/2013 - 10:53

        +1

        heh- i was refering to "REAL" TV stations, but i guess if you include Bris31 you are indeed correct. :P

      • 

        INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 11:39

        +1

        Hey, I was just watching Briz31! (Didn't realise it was the last of the UHF channels here.)

        My antenna picked up ABC(analogue) fine. But the final long elements on the antenna primarily designed for it (Bands I&II, CH2-5A) are now pretty redundant after the only channel using those bands here (ABC) moving from CH2 to CH12. As it was ancient, & the local bird life had sat on it so long, I removed it & reception did not suffer. Measurements by an installer friend indicate an improvement in performance. The longer elements did increase the sway of the antenna which combined with low signal area, resulted in some pixelation in strong wind gusts. That issue has not been seen - removed along with the longest elements (at no cost). And the birds now prefer the neighbours antennas. Happy Happy Joy Joy ;)

      • 

        Russ on 09/08/2013 - 22:40

        If you are in a strong signal area, any type of antenna will often do, even if it is broken. Digital transmission is much more resistant to many of the problems that we previously needed a good antenna to solve (like ghosting). Some tuner cards for PCs come with a tiny whip antenna that is only about 10cm long, and surprisingly it sometimes works, despite being beside a PC which is often RF-wise very "noisy"!

        In strong signal areas, a "rabbit ears" antenna is usually quite satifactory. I use one for my downstairs TV. The antenna is downstairs, under a reinforced concrete floor, and there are two besser-block walls between the antenna and the TV transmitters. It gives good reception unless the rain is bucketing down, although I did spend a lot of time adjusting it to the right position and length, so that I could receive all TV stations equally well.

• 

  altomic on 08/08/2013 - 22:03

  +6

  I don't think this deal will get a good reception here.

  • 

    seanbaussie on 08/08/2013 - 22:28

    +2

    Might not be shouting from the roof tops about it.

• 

  stevtom27 on 08/08/2013 - 23:02

  I need a new antenna. is this design any different/better to this one. I'm in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. this price is cheaper than jaycar or bunnings but not 50% cheaper.

  m.dicksmith.com.au/antennas/uhf-tv-antenna-43-element-dsau-l3084

  • 

    Russ on 09/08/2013 - 01:16

    If your existing antenna is a UHF and VHF antenna, and isn't visibly damaged, there is a good chance the antenna isn't the problem.

    First thing you should try: replace the cable between the TV and the wall socket. These frequently break, the quality of these cables is almost always poor. Should cost no more than $5, try your local junk store, the quality is pretty much the same whether you spend $2 or $50. Usually only the connector quality and appearance improves if you buy a more expensive cable, and it isn't the connector that usually breaks, it's the cable.

    If that doesn't work, and you can see the antenna masts and they are less than 10km (maybe 15km) away, try a rabbit-ears antenna next. Digital is much less "fussy" about signal reflections, unlike the old analog transmissions, so rabbit ears may be sufficient.

    However if you find that walking around can upset the TV signal, or passing vehicles or planes flying overhead make the signal drop out, or you can't receive TV when it is raining, then you need a directional antenna like the above deal. I think the above antenna was hugely overpriced at full price, but $80 is reasonable. Jaycar also sell an antenna for $69.95 regular price: http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=LT3172&form=CAT2…

    Also, if you can receive some stations okay, you might find that the antenna is fine, but the antenna cable is faulty. If water ever gets into the antenna end if the cable (round coaxial cable), it usually wrecks UHF reception, and can also impair VHF reception.

    • 

      altomic on 09/08/2013 - 09:53

      I replaced my 30+ year old antenna with a "digital" antenna from bunnings. - $59 Antsig UHF super multiband

      placed mine in the same alignment as my neighbours recently installed new antenna.

      no problem.

      though I had to duck out to DSE to get f-clip(?) connector to put on the end of the cable to connect it to the socket in the bottom of the antenna as it wasn't included with the new antenna and the old antenna was wired straight to the cable.

• 

  TimU on 09/08/2013 - 10:00

  This may be a good discount (I don't know), but it's certainly not a good deal/choice.

  Get yourself a Fracarro Log Periodic Antenna, LP34 or LP345 (depending on your location).

  ~$30 + delivery from Laceys.
  http://online.laceys.tv/collections/log-periodic/products/lp…

  Small, light, and stupidly efficient.

  I've installed 4 of these for myself & friends over the last few years. Every time a massive difference.

  • 

    BlueMM on 09/08/2013 - 15:07

    Are these better than other models or just good quality for cheap? Would these work well in poor signal areas or would you need a different model?

  • 

    Russ on 09/08/2013 - 20:33

    That's a very good price. My only concern would be that the elements look a bit thin. In my local area, there are a lot of bent and broken antennas, because heavy birds like kookaburras sit on the ends of the longer elements, and they bend or break.

• 

  INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 12:27

  No stock online, but may be in stores.
  (Think I saw 1 on Tuesday at my local - price showed $129 & very lonely on an otherwise empty shelf.)

• 

  INFIDEL on 09/08/2013 - 12:30

  144 days before last Analogue TV transmitter flips the switch to off.