I'm thinking it might be easier if I just ditch my antenna and use Locast. How is the quality the same as an antenna? If there is a difference, is it noticeable? Thanks.
In my case, using an antenna has much better quality than Locast. I get HD on the major networks and 5.1 sound. I also get 101 channels. My antenna is mounted in my attic and all broadcast towers are located together, so the antenna route was simple and there is no monthly fee.
If reception with an antenna is an issue Locast is good alternative. I tried Locast and the quality was good but didn't make sense because I could easily get the same channels and more from the antenna.
I did struggle with the antenna at first but discovered my issues were due to LTE/4G interference. Some channels would break up and stutter. Adding a LTE/4G filter solved the issue.
2 Likes
Thanks for the above. I don't have easy access to the roof and we don't have an attic, so I have my antenna hanging from one of my walls indoors facing the broadcast tower. I took me a LONG time to position it to get most of the channels but I had to sacrifice a few--but those are channels I barely watch but would be good to pick up. I guess I could do a hybrid, right...antenna for those I can pick up and Locast for the rest?
This is the route I would take. Antenna quality is superior, and the audio isn't compromised. Also, Locast does not carry every channel that is broadcast in an area, just most of them.
You can use the Locast source as a backup, so if your OTA tuner runs out of available tuners for recording, it will fall back to Locast, which while it has lower quality, it has not limit for the number of streams.
That should work. Prior to having the antenna installed in the attic, I was using an indoor antenna but only received 60+ channels and it was erratic in terms of quality. I tried several different models and each performed slightly different. My last indoor antenna was a "leaf" type that supported VHF and UHF and it gave me the best results.
1 Like
Thanks. I have a high quality indoor/outdoor antenna. Best investment...I get a LOT of channels but really depends on where I place it inside. I could try to do the roof but I live in Arizona, am not sure of the coax coming down from the roof, and would rather not sweat to death not to mention the mesh over the roof to protect it from pigeons and you can't stand up fully!
Switching to RG6 Coaxial Cable improved the reception of my indoor antenna by a lot.
Thanks. I'm definitely using RG6.
It's more expensive, but if you have towers in opposite directions and/or just want to maximize your reception, you can always use 2 antennas with 2 different HDHR boxes (one antenna connected to each HDHR) . That way you can point the antennas individually for the best possible reception. You can find 2-tuner HDHR units on ebay pretty cheap. Channels DVR allows you to integrate these seamlessly so you have one consolidated guide.
Yes, I know you can also merge two antennas into one cable, but I experienced too many issues with that for it to be a reliable solution.
That must get channel 88 the best I would imagine.
Two tuners and two antennas work well here. Figure the up front cost of everything (antennas, tuners and coax) versus the Locast service monthly cost over a period of a few years. I like the idea of "free" OTA TV rather than the cost of a service. But that is just how I feel. Other solutions might work better in your local area.
Gets 90+ but I only really watch about 10 or so of them.
1 Like
Yes, I agree. I have really not understood why anyone would pay for channels that have commercials. However, if someone is setting up an infrastructure to capture and send out the signal better than I can do with an antenna, then I am happy to pay a small fee.
1 Like
With regard to paying for content that has commercials, I think of it as the commercials are subsidizing the cost so I am paying less. Hulu quantifies this nicely. I can pay $x and get my content with commercials, or I can pay $x + $y and have the commercials removed. I pay more to have the commercials removed.
You can combine the signals from 2 antennas into 1 output.
I've found that the Locast quality is OK, but not great... and even worse when recording. When watching a major network on the morning news I would find that the news scroll at the bottom of the page would be hard to read, and fuzzy. I can tolerate that, but when I would record a show from Locast that had fast motion, or panning left and right, there would be considerable blurr and it was unwatchable for me. I have not checked in the last several months to see if this has improved. I still have the subscription but use it as a backup to the antenna and HDHR.
1 Like
Thanks. That was the feedback I was looking for.
The joke was the antenna looks like an 88.
Ah ha. Boy, am I dense.
1 Like
I still have my flat antenna in the rear facing window as a backup. It works ok but some channels would have occasional problems. Not major. But I switched to LOCAST after Channels added support. LOCAST quality is fine for my needs and only $5 per month. I believe I do get additional channels but not sure what they are since I mainly only watch major network channels. However, my wife likes the older shows on some channels. Again, not sure what those are.
Besides convenience my main reason for using LOCAST is MPEG4 vs MPEG2 (Antenna). All of my TVE Channels are also MPEG4. I use Channels remotely and MPEG4 is "much" less data than MPEG2. If the new TV Standard switches to MPEG4 I would consider it.
Again, MPEG4 is mainly for Remote viewing but I believe when you have a lot of TV's streaming in the house MPEG4 works better for that especially if viewing over WiFi.
Very easy to test LOCAST for yourself if in a support city which I assume you are. If not happy with it or do not want to pay the $5 then go for an Antenna and extra hdhomerun hardware at that time.