โMar-07-2017 08:30 AM
โMar-29-2017 09:34 AM
โMar-29-2017 03:41 AM
SCVJeff wrote:
It's true that perception goes a long way over fact, and there are a few here that will still argue that Jack is a better antenna. But the numbers simply don't lie.. and as I've said for awhile, the severe lack of VHF performance is going to come back and bite the Jack big time as stations will start populating VHF again as the repack project starts taking shape.
FWIW- Winegard found that old post and put a link on their corporate website for quite awhile
SoundGuy wrote:
Jeff - you might want to provide a link to that old post so the disbelievers can see with their own eyes the difference between perception and reality. ๐
โMar-29-2017 01:45 AM
SCVJeff wrote:
It's true that perception goes a long way over fact, and there are a few here that will still argue that Jack is a better antenna. But the numbers simply don't lie.. and as I've said for awhile, the severe lack of VHF performance is going to come back and bite the Jack big time as stations will start populating VHF again as the repack project starts taking shape.
FWIW- Winegard found that old post and put a link on their corporate website for quite awhile
โMar-28-2017 11:22 PM
โMar-26-2017 04:52 PM
โMar-26-2017 03:21 PM
โMar-26-2017 02:14 PM
SoundGuy wrote:SoundGuy wrote:
However, as SCVJeff documented in his tests some time ago using lab grade equipment that perception about the Jack antenna is just that, a perception not supported by actual test results. Regardless, I have no doubt the myth will continue that the Jack TV antenna is "better" than a Sensar IV - the fact this just isn't true notwithstanding. :WLantley wrote:
I have no real dog in this fight, The average camper is not using lab grade test equipment. If the average camper perceives it is easier to use and gets more channels that is all that matters to them. That perception goes along way. Your average camper is not going to take the comparison any further. Their initial perception is their reality.
Nor do I have a dog in this fight, I could care less what OTA antenna anyone else may use. However, repeated claims here on the forums from those who continue to expound the virtues of the King Jack antenna, claiming it's "better" than the Winegard Sensar IV are simply untrue ... it's a myth based on "perception". :W
โMar-26-2017 10:41 AM
Rawben wrote:
Ken56 - when you mention you did the "Wingman add-on" is that the
Winegard SensarPro mentioned or somethig else?
We are replacing our entire roof on a 2000 Komfort and debating on putting the Winegard antenna back on. DH is leaning towards putting it back on.
โMar-26-2017 06:01 AM
SoundGuy wrote:
However, as SCVJeff documented in his tests some time ago using lab grade equipment that perception about the Jack antenna is just that, a perception not supported by actual test results. Regardless, I have no doubt the myth will continue that the Jack TV antenna is "better" than a Sensar IV - the fact this just isn't true notwithstanding. :W
Lantley wrote:
I have no real dog in this fight, The average camper is not using lab grade test equipment. If the average camper perceives it is easier to use and gets more channels that is all that matters to them. That perception goes along way. Your average camper is not going to take the comparison any further. Their initial perception is their reality.
โMar-26-2017 05:35 AM
โMar-26-2017 12:36 AM
โMar-25-2017 08:34 PM
Watch out for how far the Wingman sticks out. On ours the Wingman would have hit the vent cover for the Fantastic fan, so I chose the Jack to replace our busted Batwing.
โMar-25-2017 07:04 PM
โMar-25-2017 07:03 PM