OTA inside antenna?

[mattbanks]

Everyone tells me OTA looks much better than HD via Time Warner for the basic cable channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox). Is there a decent indoor antenna that isn't huge that will give me a quality OTA signal? I don't want to put an antenna on my roof. I have a metal roof too, so an antenna in the attic wouldn't be all that great.

[shanedude]

I have compared both after hearing similar claims on avs forums. With my signal quality in the mid to high 90's I actually found the pic quality was overall lower quality. Motion blur and dithering of color gradient was extremely noticeable on a few (6.1, 13.1, and 17.1 were most noticeable). When researching this more I read the the local channels, at times like prime time or when sports programming is aired, try to force to much out of their bandwidth. In addition to their main hd feeds, they are pushing multiple sd digital feeds all in the same space. I asked my buddy who installs cable for and he indicated that they always give the same space for the locals and the subchannels carried no matter when it is and this is why the pic quality is more consistant than OTA.

Has anyone else seen the same? I had purchased a decent OTA antenna and also had built one. Was originally comparing the reception difference between the 2 so I could determine if the home built was able to perform. It did so I returned the store purchased one ( a Terk model which was in my attic).

[ebo]

The signal level on cable is likely to be more constant than it is from an antenna, so if you're in an area where OTA reception is iffy then cable will probably look better. But if you have reliable OTA reception then the picture quality from that source will be the best you can get because cable and satellite get their signal from the same source. Not from an antenna generally; it's a fiber feed from the station, but it's the same thing they're sending to the transmitter. I know that's the case with WRGB--their CE has said so on AVSForum--and I expect that's what the other stations do as well. It doesn't matter if cable gives a channel more bandwidth than the station does. They can't improve on what they're given. That's true for satellite as well.

Whenever I've compared bitrates for the local stations from OTA and TWC I've found TWC's bitrate to be slightly lower on all but WCWN, which is higher. As noted above, that does NOT mean that WCWN looks better on cable.

The OP asked, "Is there a decent indoor antenna that isn't huge that will give me a quality OTA signal?" In a word, no. He's in Saratoga Springs, about 33 miles from the Albany transmitters with no serious terrain issues, which isn't a bad shot for a proper outside antenna. But he can't or won't put it outside and an attic mount would be looking through a metal roof. If he has a window facing the right direction (SSW) he could try putting a 4-bay bowtie in it for the UHF channels (WTEN, WMHT and WCWN) but the VHF channels, particularly WRGB on 6, are going to require something larger. I'm getting good results from a homemade twin-lead folded dipole cut for channel 6, but I'm only 8 miles away. Plans are here: www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/dipole.html. The center frequency of ch. 6 is 85 MHz, so the length is 1.76m or 5' 9.5". Worth a try, and if it doesn't work you're not out much money. Try to get it as high as you can and away from high traffic areas and electrical devices.