Which HDTV receivers have the most receive sensitivity?

A day or so ago I ordered the SiliconDust HDHR4-2US on a NewEgg "shell shocker" discount for $65.  One of the NewEgg reviews says it has better receive sensitivity than the HDHR3 (which I don't own), and so I'm hoping it may also receive better than the original SiliconDust HomeRun (which I do own and whose reception is adequate for some stations and inadequate for others).  I'm sure it doesn't help that I'm on the wrong side of a hill with respect to some of the broadcasters.  At minimum, I hope the HDHR4-2US is not worse.  If the HDHR4-2US doesn't by itself improve reception, then I may try using a better antenna, or worst case adding directional antennas (each with its own receiver) aimed at the stations I'm not presently receiving well. 
 
Anyhow, maybe I'm missing the boat entirely.  Anyone been down this road before, especially in terms of getting the best receiver? 

Consensus is that the new generation is a little better than the previous version but still not as capable as some TV systems.
 
Craig

Here have the HDHR3-US and the cable HDHomerun Tuners.

I put my antenna in the attic. It's an old one from 10 years ago. There are two amplifiers. One in the attic next to the antenna and another one in the basement connected to a distribution amplfier. Works well here. I am about 30 miles southwest of Chicago. There are many HD channels available today but personally here do not watch live / broadcast TV these days. (well most of it is junk TV - good for testing though).

Been recording 30 minutes of news at 4am. Most of it is an advertisement. They use a roaming night reporter. Lately she has been advertising more than reporting the news while on the streets.  Well that and the news is mostly similiar to an advertisement not worth listening to.


I do have a large attic here such that there was much space for the antenna in one corner of the attic. Well that and originally the HOA rules didn't allow outdoor antennas of any kind (today said enforcement and rules are a none issue).

Have a read here.

Here too back feed TV stuff for in house TV (its a WAF thing).

Welcome to the Cocoontech Forum Davidrichard1.
 
Here I notice a better picture with the OTA stuff than the cable.  That said thinking cable does a bit of compression to their stuff.  I see the compression in the Direct TV stuff.
 
I have seen a bit of the opposite with folks dropping cable/FIOS TV, Satellite TV and using OTA for local broadcasts and a la carting the rest via the internet.

I agree with Pete here... I think my OTA picture quality is slightly better than what I get from Comcast for those channels, but only switched to OTA when Comcast decided to encrypt those channels in my area.
 
I also know of a number of people "cutting the cord" and switching to streaming services. In most cases I'm aware of is simply because it's cheaper on a monthly basis. I've looked into it for us, but honestly like having the ability to store local recordings to my media server locally (we have ~150 episodes of programming just for my son, plus 300+ movies), and am impatient and like being able to view episodes the day/night they air. I also watch sports... but can't bring myself to watch any that are recorded - has to be live, else I'd prefer to just catch highlights on ESPN. Just a matter of habit and what we've grown to like. Obviously, things are changing...

Here compared DTV to OTA (video compression / artifacts) to the current DTV/DVR combo.  (WAF thing).