Fortunately this antenna is out of production, but there may be some left in stock at distributors. I have been replacing them for several years now, just replaced two last week. It was manufactured by Winegard, called the “Square Shooter“. Terk also distributed this antenna with their name on it.
Winegard makes excellent antennas, my favorite brand overall, but this was a design that just doesn’t work very well. It will work on the UHF band at short ranges, and on the VHF band at very short ranges. It actually has negative gain on the VHF band, meaning that it has less gain than a single dipole element, like rabbit ears. Another problem is that the peak VHF reception is aligned 45 degrees to the right from the UHF reception. For UHF reception, you point it straight at the transmitter. For VHF reception, you point it 45 degrees to the left of the transmitter! In the picture above, the Square Shooter on the left is aimed for VHF, the one on the right is aimed for UHF, at the same transmitting towers. If you want good reception on VHF and UHF channels, you need two of these antennas fed through a VHF/UHF combiner. Even then, VHF reception is very weak. I measured signal strength on channel 9 with my reference dipole at 1.1 dBmV. The Square Shooter measured -19.6 dBmV on channel 9. A metal coat hanger would work better!
This is an excellent example of choosing form over function. The marketing department wanted an antenna that looked good. Most people think a traditional TV antenna is ugly, but a small satellite dish is less ugly. The Square Shooter was designed to resemble a satellite dish, about the same size, same color. It would have been a great idea if it had worked. I am sure the engineering department did the best they could, but the aesthetic goal was too restrictive for good function.
Another company, Antennas Direct, has been successful with a better compromise between form and function. These antennas are not as clean-looking as the Square Shooter, but they work much better, and most people would say they look better than traditional TV antennas. I replaced the Square Shooters with a ClearStream5 for VHF and a ClearStream2 for UHF. I measured the signal strengths for some of the Dallas/Ft Worth local broadcast channels before and after intstallation:
|
Channel |
Square Shooter |
ClearStream5 |
Increase |
|
8 (8.1) |
-16.1 dBmV |
8.2 dBmV |
24.3 dB |
|
9 (52.1) |
-19.6 dBmV |
4.4 dBmV |
24.0 dB |
|
11 (11.1) |
-27.0 dBmV |
7.1 dBmV |
34.1 dB |
|
Channel |
Square Shooter |
ClearStream2 |
Increase |
|
14 (13.1) |
-1.9 dBmV |
2.7 dBmV |
4.6 dB |
|
18 (21.1) |
-14.0 dBmV |
-9.7 dBmV |
4.3 dB |
|
19 (11.1) |
1.3 dBmV |
5.2 dBmV |
3.9 dB |
|
32 (33.1) |
2.1 dBmV |
3.5 dBmV |
1.4 dB |
|
35 (4.1) |
-6.4 dBmV |
-1.6 dBmV |
4.8 dB |
|
36 (27.1) |
0.9 dBmV |
5.1 dBmV |
4.2 dB |
|
41 (5.1) |
-4.1 dBmV |
0.9 dBmV |
5.0 dB |
|
42 (68.1) |
-2.4 dBmV |
3.6 dBmV |
6.0 dB |
|
43 (2.1) |
-3.4 dBmV |
1.2 dBmV |
4.6 dB |
|
45 (58.1) |
-5.2 dBmV |
-0.4 dBmV |
4.8 dB |
|
61 (6.1) |
-18.5 dBmV |
-13.1 dBmV |
5.4 dB |
While these ClearStream antennas work well, there are some drawbacks. You still need two antennas to cover both the VHF and UHF channels. They cost a lot more than a traditional TV antenna. They also take twice as long to install as a traditional VHF/UHF TV antenna. Finally, they are still classified as a small antenna. If you need a medium or large antenna according to antennaweb.org, these probably won’t work.
The small antenna I recommend is the Winegard HD7694P. It performs better than the combined ClearStream antennas, it is a lot less expensive and easier to install. If you don’t mind the looks, or install in an attic where it is not seen anyway, this is the way to go:





