Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE=&quot;Piggie, post: 32519, member: 2941&quot;]Interesting the C antennas work that well , something I would never have guessed at how many people I know that have replaced them with better results.&nbsp; But as you said you are in multipath heaven, or h-e-ll so to speak.Something I am curious, not debating your research is the relative AGL of his install vs your test with the C series.&nbsp;&nbsp; Could it be in that area, he probably never needed to be anywhere near 45 feet off the ground where he was up in the multipath?&nbsp; That lowering the antenna to 20 ft had some to do with less multipath?&nbsp; Was the antenna you used or use a C4? Since it has side by side elements which always help rejecting multipath from the sides. Though not practical for most home installers, I really believe in monobander antennas combined. This is very difficult in you market with 3 bands, I totally agree. I can say with only my TV as test equipment, that a U-75R rejected way more multipath than the 4221A I had up at my house. So what is it in the C series that I would assume from your results and my results works better than a whisker type antenna?&nbsp; &nbsp; I wonder if the loops in the C series which like other loops intersect the magnetic part of the EM wave give it the advantage?&nbsp; I have no idea how to explain that if it's even a factor.&nbsp;&nbsp; I know from experience on 10 meters that a 2 element quad has more than the theoretical gain when working e-skip signals. It was one of my &quot;secret&quot; weapons on field day running the 10 meter SSB station way back in the day.&nbsp; I tested 2 and 3 element yagis for months at my house one year against a 2 element quad before field day.&nbsp; The quad kept winning.&nbsp; It proved out when near by ground wave 10 meter stations all but accused me of &quot;ghost talking&quot; (making up contacts from stations they could not hear me working).&nbsp;&nbsp; Just throwing that out there.It just surprises the pudding out me as in the last couple years, almost everyone that replaced their C series with a good Winegard, even the 769xP dual banders had improved reception.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I have never argued or doubted a Rhode &amp; Swartz DTV spectrum analyzer, so what you are seeing blows my mind.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Piggie, post: 32519, member: 2941"]Interesting the C antennas work that well , something I would never have guessed at how many people I know that have replaced them with better results. But as you said you are in multipath heaven, or h-e-ll so to speak. Something I am curious, not debating your research is the relative AGL of his install vs your test with the C series. Could it be in that area, he probably never needed to be anywhere near 45 feet off the ground where he was up in the multipath? That lowering the antenna to 20 ft had some to do with less multipath? Was the antenna you used or use a C4? Since it has side by side elements which always help rejecting multipath from the sides. Though not practical for most home installers, I really believe in monobander antennas combined. This is very difficult in you market with 3 bands, I totally agree. I can say with only my TV as test equipment, that a U-75R rejected way more multipath than the 4221A I had up at my house. So what is it in the C series that I would assume from your results and my results works better than a whisker type antenna? I wonder if the loops in the C series which like other loops intersect the magnetic part of the EM wave give it the advantage? I have no idea how to explain that if it's even a factor. I know from experience on 10 meters that a 2 element quad has more than the theoretical gain when working e-skip signals. It was one of my "secret" weapons on field day running the 10 meter SSB station way back in the day. I tested 2 and 3 element yagis for months at my house one year against a 2 element quad before field day. The quad kept winning. It proved out when near by ground wave 10 meter stations all but accused me of "ghost talking" (making up contacts from stations they could not hear me working). Just throwing that out there. It just surprises the pudding out me as in the last couple years, almost everyone that replaced their C series with a good Winegard, even the 769xP dual banders had improved reception. But I have never argued or doubted a Rhode & Swartz DTV spectrum analyzer, so what you are seeing blows my mind.[/QUOTE]

Name

Verification