RV antenna
I have a King antenna that is at least 10 years old. Reception is not great. Would there be much improvement if I purchased a newer model, the King OA8300
gonesouth wrote:
You guys had me until this post. So the Jack doesn't perform well for 25% of the US channels. How is performance on the other 75%? Why is nobody talking about that?
gonesouth wrote:
You guys had me until this post. So the Jack doesn't perform well for 25% of the US channels. How is performance on the other 75%? Why is nobody talking about that?
Dutch_12078 wrote:
The Jack is not a good performer on low and high VHF, and King knows it based on the marketing blurbs. When the current channel repack is done, there will be 496 remaining low and high VHF licenses, versus 1549 remaining UHF licenses. That's nearly 25% of the TV stations that the Jack is not well designed to receive. And actually more than that if we include the 152 stations that are giving up their licenses but many will remain on the air as a sub-channel of another licensee. The Winegard Sensar 3 and 4 are both well designed for optimum low/high VHF, with the Wingman yagi feature or add-on also optimizing it for UHF.
Dutch_12078 wrote:
The Jack is not a good performer on low and high VHF, and King knows it based on the marketing blurbs. When the current channel repack is done, there will be 496 remaining low and high VHF licenses, versus 1549 remaining UHF licenses. That's nearly 25% of the TV stations that the Jack is not well designed to receive. And actually more than that if we include the 152 stations that are giving up their licenses but many will remain on the air as a sub-channel of another licensee. The Winegard Sensar 3 and 4 are both well designed for optimum low/high VHF, with the Wingman yagi feature or add-on also optimizing it for UHF.
RLS7201 wrote:ScottG wrote:wa8yxm wrote:
I will say this. there are two different standards of performance and a mistake many make
\"My king outperformed my Winegard\" is blatently false. as the other poster said that never happens. THey are at best half the antenna the Winegard is AT BEST.
But when you replaced the head,, did you replace teh coax which had become defective due to the effects of UV light (Sunlight)? If so the COAX may be the big difference.
The one case where the Jack will outperform a Sensar is if you are like 10 miles from the transmitters and they are scattered in a wide arc.
The Sensar is more directional, and thus may exclude the ends of the arc, where as the JACK being less directional sees a wider arc, but at 25+ miles the Jack sees .. Well wher eI\"m at I have 3 times the reception JACK users have.
Antennas are like field/opera glasses
Imagine being in the Gods (The nosebleed seats in a big theater,,,been there) you look at the stage and see a bunch of 2 legged ants running around (The Phantom and Christine and so on) You break out your OPERA blasses (low power bionaculars) Now you can see people but they are a long way off. Also you can still see the full stage.
You break out the FIELD GLASSES (Full power bionaculars0 now you can no longer see all the stage but it's like you are in about row 5 or there abouts on the main floor.
Same with antennas
Omni antenna.. that's the naked eye
Jack is Opera Glasses
Sensar IV or either the II or III with wingman.. FIELD glasses.
Add the sensar pro and it's light amplifying field glasses (military type).
\"Blatantly false\"?
LOL, well that's your opinion. I guess your suggesting anyone says such is lying - the last ditch effort to argue when one can't back up their claim.
Here is the back up to wa8yxm's claim. There is just no argument against signal strength on a oscilloscope.
Richard
RLS7201 wrote:ScottG wrote:wa8yxm wrote:
I will say this. there are two different standards of performance and a mistake many make
\"My king outperformed my Winegard\" is blatently false. as the other poster said that never happens. THey are at best half the antenna the Winegard is AT BEST.
But when you replaced the head,, did you replace teh coax which had become defective due to the effects of UV light (Sunlight)? If so the COAX may be the big difference.
The one case where the Jack will outperform a Sensar is if you are like 10 miles from the transmitters and they are scattered in a wide arc.
The Sensar is more directional, and thus may exclude the ends of the arc, where as the JACK being less directional sees a wider arc, but at 25+ miles the Jack sees .. Well wher eI\"m at I have 3 times the reception JACK users have.
Antennas are like field/opera glasses
Imagine being in the Gods (The nosebleed seats in a big theater,,,been there) you look at the stage and see a bunch of 2 legged ants running around (The Phantom and Christine and so on) You break out your OPERA blasses (low power bionaculars) Now you can see people but they are a long way off. Also you can still see the full stage.
You break out the FIELD GLASSES (Full power bionaculars0 now you can no longer see all the stage but it's like you are in about row 5 or there abouts on the main floor.
Same with antennas
Omni antenna.. that's the naked eye
Jack is Opera Glasses
Sensar IV or either the II or III with wingman.. FIELD glasses.
Add the sensar pro and it's light amplifying field glasses (military type).
\"Blatantly false\"?
LOL, well that's your opinion. I guess your suggesting anyone says such is lying - the last ditch effort to argue when one can't back up their claim.
Here is the back up to wa8yxm's claim. There is just no argument against signal strength on a oscilloscope.
Richard
ScottG wrote:wa8yxm wrote:
I will say this. there are two different standards of performance and a mistake many make
\"My king outperformed my Winegard\" is blatently false. as the other poster said that never happens. THey are at best half the antenna the Winegard is AT BEST.
But when you replaced the head,, did you replace teh coax which had become defective due to the effects of UV light (Sunlight)? If so the COAX may be the big difference.
The one case where the Jack will outperform a Sensar is if you are like 10 miles from the transmitters and they are scattered in a wide arc.
The Sensar is more directional, and thus may exclude the ends of the arc, where as the JACK being less directional sees a wider arc, but at 25+ miles the Jack sees .. Well wher eI\"m at I have 3 times the reception JACK users have.
Antennas are like field/opera glasses
Imagine being in the Gods (The nosebleed seats in a big theater,,,been there) you look at the stage and see a bunch of 2 legged ants running around (The Phantom and Christine and so on) You break out your OPERA blasses (low power bionaculars) Now you can see people but they are a long way off. Also you can still see the full stage.
You break out the FIELD GLASSES (Full power bionaculars0 now you can no longer see all the stage but it's like you are in about row 5 or there abouts on the main floor.
Same with antennas
Omni antenna.. that's the naked eye
Jack is Opera Glasses
Sensar IV or either the II or III with wingman.. FIELD glasses.
Add the sensar pro and it's light amplifying field glasses (military type).
\"Blatantly false\"?
LOL, well that's your opinion. I guess your suggesting anyone says such is lying - the last ditch effort to argue when one can't back up their claim.
ScottG wrote:wa8yxm wrote:
I will say this. there are two different standards of performance and a mistake many make
\"My king outperformed my Winegard\" is blatently false. as the other poster said that never happens. THey are at best half the antenna the Winegard is AT BEST.
But when you replaced the head,, did you replace teh coax which had become defective due to the effects of UV light (Sunlight)? If so the COAX may be the big difference.
The one case where the Jack will outperform a Sensar is if you are like 10 miles from the transmitters and they are scattered in a wide arc.
The Sensar is more directional, and thus may exclude the ends of the arc, where as the JACK being less directional sees a wider arc, but at 25+ miles the Jack sees .. Well wher eI\"m at I have 3 times the reception JACK users have.
Antennas are like field/opera glasses
Imagine being in the Gods (The nosebleed seats in a big theater,,,been there) you look at the stage and see a bunch of 2 legged ants running around (The Phantom and Christine and so on) You break out your OPERA blasses (low power bionaculars) Now you can see people but they are a long way off. Also you can still see the full stage.
You break out the FIELD GLASSES (Full power bionaculars0 now you can no longer see all the stage but it's like you are in about row 5 or there abouts on the main floor.
Same with antennas
Omni antenna.. that's the naked eye
Jack is Opera Glasses
Sensar IV or either the II or III with wingman.. FIELD glasses.
Add the sensar pro and it's light amplifying field glasses (military type).
\"Blatantly false\"?
LOL, well that's your opinion. I guess your suggesting anyone says such is lying - the last ditch effort to argue when one can't back up their claim.
wa8yxm wrote:
I will say this. there are two different standards of performance and a mistake many make
\"My king outperformed my Winegard\" is blatently false. as the other poster said that never happens. THey are at best half the antenna the Winegard is AT BEST.
But when you replaced the head,, did you replace teh coax which had become defective due to the effects of UV light (Sunlight)? If so the COAX may be the big difference.
The one case where the Jack will outperform a Sensar is if you are like 10 miles from the transmitters and they are scattered in a wide arc.
The Sensar is more directional, and thus may exclude the ends of the arc, where as the JACK being less directional sees a wider arc, but at 25+ miles the Jack sees .. Well wher eI\"m at I have 3 times the reception JACK users have.
Antennas are like field/opera glasses
Imagine being in the Gods (The nosebleed seats in a big theater,,,been there) you look at the stage and see a bunch of 2 legged ants running around (The Phantom and Christine and so on) You break out your OPERA blasses (low power bionaculars) Now you can see people but they are a long way off. Also you can still see the full stage.
You break out the FIELD GLASSES (Full power bionaculars0 now you can no longer see all the stage but it's like you are in about row 5 or there abouts on the main floor.
Same with antennas
Omni antenna.. that's the naked eye
Jack is Opera Glasses
Sensar IV or either the II or III with wingman.. FIELD glasses.
Add the sensar pro and it's light amplifying field glasses (military type).
wa8yxm wrote:
I will say this. there are two different standards of performance and a mistake many make
\"My king outperformed my Winegard\" is blatently false. as the other poster said that never happens. THey are at best half the antenna the Winegard is AT BEST.
But when you replaced the head,, did you replace teh coax which had become defective due to the effects of UV light (Sunlight)? If so the COAX may be the big difference.
The one case where the Jack will outperform a Sensar is if you are like 10 miles from the transmitters and they are scattered in a wide arc.
The Sensar is more directional, and thus may exclude the ends of the arc, where as the JACK being less directional sees a wider arc, but at 25+ miles the Jack sees .. Well wher eI\"m at I have 3 times the reception JACK users have.
Antennas are like field/opera glasses
Imagine being in the Gods (The nosebleed seats in a big theater,,,been there) you look at the stage and see a bunch of 2 legged ants running around (The Phantom and Christine and so on) You break out your OPERA blasses (low power bionaculars) Now you can see people but they are a long way off. Also you can still see the full stage.
You break out the FIELD GLASSES (Full power bionaculars0 now you can no longer see all the stage but it's like you are in about row 5 or there abouts on the main floor.
Same with antennas
Omni antenna.. that's the naked eye
Jack is Opera Glasses
Sensar IV or either the II or III with wingman.. FIELD glasses.
Add the sensar pro and it's light amplifying field glasses (military type).
