It all boils down to the radiation pattern, it it's suitable for the intended purpose. Using a 1/4 wave length antenna as the basis for comparison, a 5/8 wave length antenna tends to have slightly better/longer range due to the shape of the radiation pattern. It tends to be 'flatter', sort of. So, all things being equal (which they never are), a 5/8 wave antenna tends to be 'better' than a 1/4 wave as far as range is concerned.
The 'catch' to the above is that we're talking about a full sized 1/4 wave and a full sized 5/8 wave antenna. Not one shortened by loading. Making any antenna shorter changes it's 'normal' radiation pattern. That 'change' is never towards the good side, but is always lesser than the full sized one. While where that load is positioned in the antenna does make some difference, that difference isn't very noticeable in most cases. Noticeable in what you hear, not what can be measured. If the difference in the 'numbers' is great enough, then there can be an apparent increase/decrease in what you hear. If those 'number's don't have enough difference, then what's the difference , you can't hear it, which is the whole point. There are gobs of ways to arrive at those 'numbers'. Some have much more meaning than others. How they are arrived at makes the biggest difference. I think I'd be safe in saying that probably no two antenna manufacturers use exactly the same methods in arriving at the ratings of their antennas. And because of that, you want to allow for that discrepancy (add 'salt' in various amounts, or 'Ex-Lax' in some cases?).
None of the above even starts to account for different circumstances. What seems like a 'miracle' in some circumstances is 'snake-oil' in others. One size never fits all very well.
So which of the antennas quoted is the best? Only real answer is, it just depends...
- 'Doc
