| Value |  3 | | Performance | 3 | | Ease of Use |  4 | | Overall Satisfaction | 3 |
| |
3 of 5 It works okay... I guess. Friday, June 19, 2009
Daniel from Long Beach, California
For those of us living in urban jungles, desolate farmlands, and anywhere else that TV signals can't seem to reach, the act of buying an antenna is always fraught with apprehension. Will it work? Will I be able to return it if it doesn't? I live in the aforementioned urban jungle (30 miles from the nearest transmission towers in Los Angeles) and have gone through at least a dozen antennas in the last three years in my frustrated search for over-the-air TV reception. With the push toward all-digital broadcasting this year, I figured I'd try my luck with antennas once again. Scouring the earth for the most powerful indoor antennas available, my research led me toward the "innovative" new flat/multi-directional antenna designs, first the RCA ANT1550 Flat Amplified Digital Antenna, and then the TERK FDTV1A Flat Digital Amplified Indoor Antenna. Neither one has "wowed" me, but judging by the number of channels picked up and the reliability of those signals day-to-day, I have found the RCA model to be slightly more effective than the TERK. In fact, the first time I connected the TERK and performed a "discover channels" on my digital TV, I actually LOST channels! I had to reconnect the RCA, "discover channels" a few more times until I was satisfied that my channel lineup was adequately restored, and only then reconnected the TERK (the RCA is destined for another room in the house). So, although I've got a handful of clear channels, overall I'm somewhat disappointed in the TERK compared to the RCA, especially considering the inflated price tag for what is essentially a slab of plastic. The RCA costs the same, yet performs better despite being a year older than the TERK. Was this review helpful?  
|
