Antenna's Direct steps up its indoor DTV antenna offerings

We've always been big fans of Antennas Direct, in fact our love even goes back before we wrote our still popular how to get free OTA HD where we showed you how to use a couple of the site's antennas to maximize our HD reception. But maybe you aren't living somewhere that you have the luxury of mounting an outside antenna, and your significant other isn't down with those ugly things. If you fit the picture we just painted then the new ClearStream Micron is just what you've been waiting for. The UHF only antenna has a range of 25 miles and is only 9 by 11 inches square and a mere 15 mm thick. Obviously we can't vouch for the capabilities of this antenna ourselves, but we can for Antennas Direct and at a price of $50 it is probably worth your time if you are in the need for an indoor antenna.

[IceTheGreat Posted Sep 11th 2009 2:36PM]

c'mon, half the price and reviewed by many....vs.....unknown..?

http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=109&cp_id=10901&cs_id=1090102&p_id=4730&seq=1&format=2

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 11th 2009 4:19PM]

I have a great UHF only "HDTV" antenna in my attic that picked up every station in Baltimore and D.C. Unfortunately, some of the stations I was once able to receive switched their HD frequency to VHF so all of these UHF only HD antennas are pretty much useless. Why can't someone make a good VHF/UHF antenna. Even Antennas Direct is misleading people with their packaging that states the antennas will pick up every HD channel (I tried one of their outdoor antennas that had that statement on the package). Not true if it's a UHF only antenna. The average consumer may not be aware of this issue, and the manufacturers should be required to list if the antenna is UHF only on the packaging. Most of them don't.

[nrb Posted Sep 11th 2009 5:03PM]

Their ClearStream product does High VHF as well, therefore will cover all digital channels in any area that I know of (I don't think anyone transmits digital on Low VHF). I've their C2 on my roof and it does an exceptional job. Much better than my old antenna did with analog channels.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 11th 2009 6:25PM]

Here's how to make one for about $5.00:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQhlmJTMzw

[nrb Posted Sep 12th 2009 4:08AM]

It needs a reflector. You could add that with chicken wire, but it'd run the cost up to $7.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 11th 2009 8:11PM]

Are sixth-graders now writing copy for engadget? "Mear"?? "Significate"?!?

Sheesh.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 11th 2009 8:19PM]

I agree with Pilkington - Besides the errors he lists, I don't think I'm interesting in Engadget showing me how to maximize Engadget's HD reception.

[daaper Posted Sep 14th 2009 1:31PM]

I agree, I don't think you're interesting either.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 11th 2009 8:19PM]

And my post above shows why I don't write or proof for a living.

[(Unverified) Posted Sep 11th 2009 10:06PM]

I just got the Monoprice antenna and I guess it works as advertised. The local Fox affiliate broadcasts on Ch. 9 for some reason (they're 10), which is VHF, and it's the only local station I can't pickup. For an antenna without the long, ugly rabbit ears of traditional antennae, the Monoprice is pretty good. I simply have it mounted high indoors. Anyone know if it's supposed to pick up VHF?

[daaper Posted Sep 14th 2009 1:34PM]

It says it receives the new ATSC DTV broadcasts mandated by law over VHF and UHF bandwidths. So I have no idea why you're not getting your FOX station.

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 16th 2009 11:37AM]

It says it is a "UHF-only" antenna..many "UHF-only" antennas claim they can receive high-band VHF, but as an employee of a VHF television station, I have come to realize that, with the digital signal, this is only the case when you are close to the transmitting source or just happen to be in the right place. If your within 30 miles or less, try a Terk5..many of my viewers have and haven't had any problems.

What happened with UHF/VHF is many television stations held temporary UHF assignments for their digital channel, with plans to return to VHF after their analog was shut down. VHF is more energy efficient and suppose to give the greater coverage. My theory is that antenna manufacturers assumed that the temporary UHF placements were permenant and didn't see the need for VHF antennas after analog. Unfortunately, 1/3 or more stations went back to VHF and 2/3 of the viewers bought UHF only antennas..my guess would be that more stylish VHF/UHF combos will be available soon..fyi, rabbit ears are crap :)