|
Philips High Performance Amplified Indoor Uhf/Vhf/Fm/HDTV Antenna | 
 enlarge
| Brand: Philips
Category: CE
Buy New: $51.39
New (8) from $19.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  145 reviews
Media: Electronics
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.6
Dimensions (in): 6 x 8 x 12
Legal Disclaimer: Warranty does not cover misuse of product.
MPN: MANT510
Model: MANT510
UPC: 026616017287
EAN: 0026616017287
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Features:
| • | Adjustable gain with LED signal level monitor | | • | Unique designed UHF panel array for superior analog and DTV reception | | • | Swivels and tilts for best signal alignment | | • | A/B switch, heavy chrome plated 44 dipoles |
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
50 dB, Amplified Indoor UHF/VHF/FM/HDTV Antenna, Superior High Definition, Features Scientifically Tuned For Optimum Performance Over UHF Band, Flat Panel UHF Loop That Vastly Improves UHF Performance Over Conventional Loop Type, Perfect For Both Todays Analog Reception & The Futures Digital TV, Fine Tuning Adjustment For UHF & VHF, 50 dB Amplification, Modern & Contemporary Design.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 140 more reviews...
 High Perfomance is true. June 12, 2007
341 out of 348 found this review helpful
I'm a first timer at getting OTA HDTV. This has been an experiment in progress for the past 5 weeks. I have gone through four antennas (they are all here as I write this) before finding something that's satisfactory (rather than tolerable).
I live around 25 miles from Manhattan, where the towers of most TV stations are located. I am also aware of the directional information from [...], and have experimented accordingly with its effects on reception. My apartment's windows all face north, while the signals all comes from southwest. I cannot get signals from where it comes from, and thus needed to get signals from deflections perhaps off nearby buildings and trees. It's a very poor circumstance for over-the-air reception, maybe just slightly better than being underground. Signals are weak, and are affected by weather. Stormy and windy days have shown effects at disrupting signal reception.
With this said, and without going into much detail, let's talk about the antennas. Now all these antenna have been tested with the same equipment, setup, directional adjustments, location, etc. etc. and have been tested through good an foul weather, day and night, to observe differences.
1.Terk HDTVa Terk HDTVa Indoor Amplified High-Definition Antenna for Off-Air HDTV Reception- After reading some rave reviews and high ratings at [...], log periodic types (looks like a fishbone) seems to be the way to go. I got the Terk HDTVa first, thinking that the amplification and VHF antenna should nail my reception problems at the start. However, after more than two weeks of fidgeting around ad nauseam (directions, locations, amplifications, different devices, etc.), I only managed to pick up two ATSC channels' signals, and even those don't have strong enough signals to display anything. I thought maybe it's just my poor location, and that I should probably give up on the attempt. The included in-line amplifier dongle doesn't work at all. Powering it on makes no difference in signal strength readings, which hovered around 5-10%.
It is well built, looks nice, good concepts, but it just didn't work.
2.Phlips PHDTV1 Philips PHDTV1 Digital HDTV-UHF Indoor Antenna- The venerated "silver sensor" which was previously sold under the Zenith brand also had great ratings and reviews. It's in fact nearly legendary. I decided, in desperation, to try it out, even if it doesn't have amplification. It seems all my local HD channels are in UHF anyway, so I won't miss the VHF dipoles.
The unit has startlingly poorer build quality compared to the Terk. It has paint bubbles, hairs and dusts trappings in the paint, sharp edged cheap plastics and much thinner metal blades that's covered in oil and has some dings and bendings. I wasn't impressed with the quality, and didn't expect much from it as I set it up.
To my surprise, it picked up 9 working channels (note: the terk got two channels' signals, but they didn't work) from the start, even if it's randomly placed. It's thrilling as it was the first time I saw OTA HDTV. After some adjustment and location experiments, I was able to receive 19 channels. However, not all of these channels work well given the same direction.
The directionally sensitive antenna needs to be adjusted as I switch channels. e.g. NBC and CBS seems to work well in one direction, while ABC has its own favorite direction, which works also with FOX. I tried as best as possible to find a compromise point where everything works. I couldn't. It just needs to be adjusted constantly.
The transmission is often dogged by reception fluctuations. Signal quality tend to fluctuate quite a bit, especially affected by weather. That means the TV playback would get choppy at times, with its severity dependent on the direction I point the antenna at. I didn't think fluctuating signals was a characteristic until I tried the latter two antennas later. I also found that I had to constantly play with the directional positioning to get a stable signal from each of the stations.
It works, and I was impressed, but then in retrospect it could only be best described as a "tolerable" HDTV experience as I struggled for a smooth signal delivery.
3.RCA ANT111 Basic Indoor Antenna- While shopping in stores, I saw this basic and classic RCA loop/dipole antenna for less than $[...]. I couldn't resist the temptation to try it out, just for the heck of it. It is also a different type of antenna than the previous two.
Again, I was surprised. This cheap antenna worked well, especially considering how it's only a fraction of the price of the two I'd tried. I ended up getting 17 channels, a few less than the PHDTV1, with the same location and setup. Some channels also don't work, even if signals were detected. The quality of the signals seems to be the key.
So what's so special about it? It strangely had better signal delivery for the channels that worked. It's not as choppy, and quality level is very steady. It is also not as affected by directional positioning. I was for the first time able to view FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC without adjusting the antenna. However, the lack of directionality also makes it ambiguous when I lost the signal. It seems that there's no "favorite direction" for the channels, which also means I can't pull in stronger signals at my choosing. It is also quite susceptible to weather changes, particularly wind (which probably affected signals reflected by trees?)
The signal strength also seems to be a little weaker, though the signal quality tend to be higher in general. That probably contributed to the smoother video delivery. It also tempted me to get a similar design that has amplification.
4.Philips MANT510 Philips High Performance Amplified Indoor Uhf/ Vhf/ Fm Antenna- This unit has a "digital TV optimized, patent pending UHF panel array". I thought I'd try it out just for the slightly different antenna design, if not just for the adjustable amplification.
Well, it works, and works quite well. The antenna doesn't work without power, and with amplification turned off it works a little less than unpowered PHDTV1 and ANT111. Yet with the amplification turned on, I get 24 channels, with strength up to 81% (compared to 3-10% unamplified, and quality consistently above 60 and usually in the 70-90%+. That generates the most reliable video delivery of all the ones tried.
While thunderstorms still managed to distrupt signals, it's much less often and only momentarily. I also don't have to worry about hunting for signals as I just point it in one general direction and I get everything but three NJN channels (they are even further from here.. maybe a good 50 miles).
I finally can just set the antenna and forget it. It lets me focus on the programming rather than antenna adjustment. While it needs to be powered, it gives me the confidence to finally enjoy HDTV, rather than tweaking and tolerating it. It's good enough that I can probably stop searching. I hope it'll be helpful to you who may be going through the same purchasing decision nausea as I have.
 This is well worth a try (it works for me!). October 28, 2006
42 out of 46 found this review helpful
Since the early nineties, I've bought and owned four "amplified antennas" (i.e., what I myself call "electrified rabbit ears"). One was from Radio Shack; one is by RCA; and my two most recent ones are by Philips. All the aforementioned products worked well enough to satisfy me.
In addition to this "silvery" (and presumably "top-of-the-line") MANT510 model, I have Philips' "bottom-of-the-line" ("basic black") MANT310 model, which functions virtually as well but which is neither as stylish nor (arguably) as operationally convenient due to its single "rotary" knob that doubles as the "power" switch and as the "signal-amplification adjustor". By contrast, this model MANT510 has: two "pushbuttons" for adjusting signal amplification; and a "sliding switch" (located on its rear panel) for switching it on or off.
In addition to adjusting the signal amplification (via two side-by-side pushbuttons in conjunction with five, red LED lights) you can, of course, simply reposition the two VHF dipoles and/or the UHF element. Moreover, you may often find that by simply "rotating" the entire unit (base) at least 90 degrees, you will significantly improve reception of certain channels.
With essentially ANY of these "amplified antenna" products, you can't necessarily or realistically expect "perfect" reception of ALL channels in your particular region. Much will depend on the unique characteristics of your location (i.e., not merely your "street address" but also specifically where you locate the antenna within your home).
Thus, probably the best thing to do is to hang onto your sales receipt while you TRY this (or any comparable) model to see if it actually produces video reception that is substantially better (than via non-amplified "rabbit ears") and, at very least, acceptable to your sensibilities.
For me, the "bottom line" is that, by using such an amplified antenna as this, I'm able to save hundreds of dollars annually (versus paying the cable or satellite people). Thus do I receive all the TV programming I really need, and the money saved can be allocated to sundry other pastimes than that of "playing the couch potato"!
An improvement of the PHD TV3 July 7, 2007
40 out of 40 found this review helpful
At $500 per year for basic cable, the financial argument for buying an antenna is compelling if you're not a cable junkie. So the issue is which one to buy.
We live in a reception hollow about 15 miles from most of the local station antennas. This antenna improved reception for all of the stations in the area when compared with our old PHD TV3, especially major network affiliates, but was weak on independent stations. (Prior to that, we had a Terk, which was the worst of the bunch).
Philips seems to be oblivious to the fact that a lot of people who buy indoor antennas place them in the attic or some other enclosed space. The instructions for this antenna tell you to set the rabbit ears straight vertical for channels 2 - 6, and horizontal for VHF channels above 6. The latter is difficult, if not impossible, in an enclosed space.
So we just set them straight up, which worked fine for all VHF channels except 7, a marked improvement over the PHD TV3.
UHF reception, on the other hand, is somewhat worse. But we don't watch much UHF.
The gain control is useless. On every other antenna I've tried, the gain control has improved reception, but not this one.
I found the other reviews on this page (especially Y. Chang's) very helpful, and recommend reading them.
Update: Several years ago I read an amazon review that described the Winegard SS-3000 as being far and away the best indoor antenna. I couldn't remember the name, but recently tracked it down and bought one. It really is the Gold Standard of indoor TV antennas. Unlike most others, it is compact, has no rabbit ears, and incorporates modern technology in its design. I was able to buy one from Affordable HDTV in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. It's more expensive than the others (costs about 100 bucks), but is significantly better. An identical product is sold by Terk as the TERK HDTVLP Indoor / Outdoor TV and HDTV Antenna.
Winegard also sells an outdoor model SS-2000 "Squareshooter" that looks to me like it could easily be mounted indoors. It too has received excellent reviews, although I have not tried it. It sells for about the same price as the SS-3000. It is also sold by Terk as TERK HD-TVS Slim Profile Outdoor HDtv Antenna.
 Don't Waste Your Money October 19, 2007
24 out of 25 found this review helpful
As with all indoor "rabbit ear" type antennas, getting a reliable digital signal with this antenna takes a good deal of "trial and error". Move the TV an inch. Move the antenna two inches right. Move the connecting cable between the TV and the antenna up...down, back.
After hours of "trial and error", I was able to get a good digital signal from every network except one. But, when I changed the channel from NBC to CBS, I needed to slide the antenna two inches to the right, and then back when switching back to NBC.
But, I still need to get an analog "over the air" signal for the stations that I can not get a digital signal for. With this powered antenna, the picture quality on most analog stations was filled with noise and ghosts, no matter how the antenna was adjusted. Most analog stations were simply unwatchable. The amplifier simply amplifies the noise and distortion in an analog signal.
I then used a simple $10 non-powered antenna, the Philips SDV2210/17, which resembles the powered version, but has a manual tuning knob instead of an electronic "booster" button.
After much "trial and error", the $10 Phillips got as good a digital signal as the powered version, but a far, far superior analog signal. I could not get the ABC network digital signal, but the analog ABC signal was strong and almost ghostfree.
I still had to move the $10 antenna back and forth two inches when changing stations. Then, I bought a SECOND $10 Phillips antenna and connected both antennas to the TV using $8 worth of Radio Shack adapters.
With one antenna aimed for NBC and one aimed for CBS, I can now get a perfect digital signal from those networks, plus FOX, and PBS (which is on a VHS frequency...not all indoor antennas include the long "rabbit ears" needed for VHS). And, the best aspect of the "two antenna" approach is that NO "tweeking" or adjustments are necessary when I change channels.
The two manual Philips antennas, plus adapters, cost about $28...providing perfect "over the air" digital TV reception without paying a penny to the cable company.
I'd guess my "install two sets of 'rabbit ears' approach is likely to help anyone who is trying to get signals located in different directions, or channels that are on greatly differing frequences.
Again, it took many hours of trial and error, moving antennas, moving connecting cables, rotating the "fine tuning" knobs, and retuning and retuning the TV's "automatic station selector" to lock in perfect digital TV reception. Because moving something (the TV, either antenna, either set of connecting cables) even ONE inch can miss things up, I've taped everything into place to "lock in" my perfect digital reception.
 Not good...built-in amp is probably fine, but reception is just bad. August 8, 2006
20 out of 24 found this review helpful
I bought this antenna hoping to pull in digital TV signals from the towers which are 12 miles from my apartment. The built-in variable 50dB amplifier really attracted me.
Problem is, the antenna itself can't grab a signal clean enough to amplify. So basically, the amplifier works very well at making interference and multipath even worse. I should have known better, as the main pickup element on this antenna isn't really big enough (or wide enough) to effectively pick up the UHF wavelength--typically about 30cm to 10cm.
Even in unamplified mode, the signal quality was pretty poor.
If you've got an unobstructed shot at your local tower, this thing MIGHT be fine. But if you're dealing with any multipath problems (like buildings, trees, walls, etc.), forget it. Hate to be blunt, but [...] amplified is just amplified [...]. Conversely, an amplified CLEAN signal can be of great benefit.
I went with an UNamplified Zenith, and it works great. A side-by-side comparison was no contest... the design and performance of the little Zenith was far better.
|
|
|
|
2005-2007 Zone1electronics All rights reserved.
| |
