base antenna's 5/8 7/8 and so on

[Mcds26]

I was talking to a few people on the radio and everyone makes 5/8 and the Sigma IV is 7/8 ..... Does anyone make a full wave ? or is there another antenna out there that is 7/8 and as good as the Sigma IV .... because i can't fined out and looking for a new base antenna


p.s. yes i'm looking at the I10k from jay too i know someone will say it

 

[Master Chief]

Hold me back bob85....HOLD ME BACK!!!!!

(Good call on the I-10K BTW. If it is too expensive for you or if having something other than the BEST suits your needs, then get the Maco V58. I would stay very far away from the import copies of the Sigma IV!)

 

[KingCobra_CDX882]

Jay and Steve's
Interceptor I-10K is the best

there are a few other good antennas out there
most complain of the price of the I-10K

Although there are other well built antennas
such as Wolf's .64 or coily's antenna

i have yet to see an antenna as well built or as good sounding as the I-10K

So So many people go out ant get this radio or that radio
this amp or that amp

We may find it hard to chose the best location to set a base station up from

however
most importent things are

Location,location
antenna height
antenna (too commonly over looked)
feedline/coax (usally 1st to be over looked)
radio
amp/linear

Although i have never used a sigma (original or copy)
it seems to not be in the league of todays better antennas
(from what i see and hear)

I know wolf's .64 antenna is a exellent sounding antenna
looks easy to set up
(and can be tuned though a good range of frequency's)

Never heard anyone talking on the mr coilly antenna

I Do however use and been using the Interceptor I-10K
I also have heard other people using the I-10K

I can say...usally i am asked what kind of beam i am using
and when i get a I-10K to I-10K contact
it is like we are talking local
(even though can be 2500 miles away)

I can say that the I-10K will take extreme abuse from bad weather (mine came down 2 times from failed chimney mounts in hurrican winds...but the antenna itself survives and works as good as it ever has)

The I-10K will take whatever reasonable power one can put to it

when comparing say the A-99 or the Imax 2000 antenna
(that so many use)

i good 5/8 wave or better metel/alumimum antenna will both hear and transmitt better

in the end you get what you pay for

www.a1antennas.com

do also put thoght to your coax
i use andrews heliax LDF5-50A on HF frequency's
then get the best radio you are willing or able to go to

then and only then
consider a amp/linear
(i have yet to use or need a amp or linear and have spoken all over the world (except antartica)
i just have no need of a amp

 

[W5LZ]

Mcds26,
Don't make the mistake of getting 'caught-up' in the wavelength 'numbers' for antennas, they honestly don't make that much practical difference in transmitted signal. The 'biggy' that does make a difference is the 'shape' of the radiation pattern produced by 'whatever' length antenna you happen to have and it's polarization. The 'other' quality that makes a more than slight difference is the antenna's construction. How durable it is, or isn't. And how easy it is to erect and tune. If antenna 'A' has a radiation pattern that puts your signal where you want it (in general), isn't going to collapse during the next storm (or just cuz it 'feels' like it), and doesn't take a week and half the national debt to erect, it just doesn't make any -practical- diffrence to who is listening to you or that you want to hear. There just isn't one antenna that 'does' everything, all the time. And there just ain't no 'miniature' antennas that'll fit everywhere, unfortunately. (If it ain't big and ugly, it probably ain't gonna work for you very well, sort of.)
The 'other' thing about the various 'lengths' of antenna is how easy/simple are they to match to the impedance needed (something close to 50 ohms). Some are 'closer' than others. A full wave length antenna sin't anywhere near 50 ohms. Neither is a 7/8, or 5/8 wave. The 'trick' is to 'balance' all of an antenna's qualities to produce the desired 'shape' of it's radiation pattern, and still be half-way rea$onable in erecting where you want to put it. You select the best 'compromise' for your particular situation/application, and live with it.
In a VERY general situation, the biggest and highest antenna will be better than the smallest and lowest.
The only thing any antenna will 'do' for your signal is make it stronger or weaker. Antennas have absolutely no affect on a signals 'quality', what it 'sounds' like.
- 'Doc

PS - 'Fatter' antennas make you voice sound more 'masculine', that sort of thingy. Right? Sort of?

 

[CDX-007]

Mcds26,
Don't make the mistake of getting 'caught-up' in the wavelength 'numbers' for antennas, they honestly don't make that much practical difference in transmitted signal. The 'biggy' that does make a difference is the 'shape' of the radiation pattern produced by 'whatever' length antenna you happen to have and it's polarization. The 'other' quality that makes a more than slight difference is the antenna's construction. How durable it is, or isn't. And how easy it is to erect and tune. If antenna 'A' has a radiation pattern that puts your signal where you want it (in general), isn't going to collapse during the next storm (or just cuz it 'feels' like it), and doesn't take a week and half the national debt to erect, it just doesn't make any -practical- diffrence to who is listening to you or that you want to hear. There just isn't one antenna that 'does' everything, all the time. And there just ain't no 'miniature' antennas that'll fit everywhere, unfortunately. (If it ain't big and ugly, it probably ain't gonna work for you very well, sort of.)
The 'other' thing about the various 'lengths' of antenna is how easy/simple are they to match to the impedance needed (something close to 50 ohms). Some are 'closer' than others. A full wave length antenna sin't anywhere near 50 ohms. Neither is a 7/8, or 5/8 wave. The 'trick' is to 'balance' all of an antenna's qualities to produce the desired 'shape' of it's radiation pattern, and still be half-way rea$onable in erecting where you want to put it. You select the best 'compromise' for your particular situation/application, and live with it.
In a VERY general situation, the biggest and highest antenna will be better than the smallest and lowest.
The only thing any antenna will 'do' for your signal is make it stronger or weaker. Antennas have absolutely no affect on a signals 'quality', what it 'sounds' like.
- 'Doc

PS - 'Fatter' antennas make you voice sound more 'masculine', that sort of thingy. Right? Sort of?

Excellent answer.

I nominate this for the 'Post Hall of Fame'.

 

[dudmuck]

i have yet to see an antenna as well built or as good sounding as the I-10K

Crisp highs as well as deep, rich lows eh??

Kind of like how Jo-Gunn antenna has 30 dB of audio gain.

 

[CDX-007]

Hey, listen Pal, my antenna is plate modulated@!


...the dam mounting plate won't stop vibrating in the wind.

 

[Unit 194]

Hey, listen Pal, my antenna is plate modulated@!


...the dam mounting plate won't stop vibrating in the wind.

 

[KingCobra_CDX882]

Hey dudmuck

just saying the reports i get
also i know i hear better

those are the facts
quite simple really

 

[CDX-007]

I can see how the RX audio on/of one antenna could be better than another different antenna. If one had a good DC path to ground it would tend to bleed off static charges leaving the NB circuit in the receiver with less to attack and therefore it might sound cleaner.

On TX another possibility, perhaps one antenna has an equally low SWR but a weird reactance. The output protection circuit may sense the odd load reactance and inject more bias or negative feedback causing an overall loss in dynamic headroom, thus causing a somewhat 'squashed' sound to the audio, especially in comparison to the other one running happily at full power out.

But a piece of metal, usually mixed metals, when functioning properly as an antenna has no inherent ability to shape or change the audio characteristics of the transmitted RF.

What it is given it gives away with no say in the matter unless, as already stated, it is not functioning correctly and causing a problem which potentially could show up in a degradation of audio quality.

That reminds me, I need to get to changing out that tinnie sounding coax tomorrow.


Seventy Trees

 

[dudmuck]

If you're transmitting a stronger signal, people should hear you better, which means you sound better. And a better antenna system has the biggest impact there.
Receive is all about signal-to-noise ratio, if improving your antenna improves S/N ratio on receive then you'll hear better.

But i think monstercable should get into gold-plated CB coax-cables, they'd make a killing.

 

[CDX-007]

If you're transmitting a stronger signal, people should hear you better, which means you sound better. And a better antenna system has the biggest impact there.
Receive is all about signal-to-noise ratio, if improving your antenna improves S/N ratio on receive then you'll hear better.

But i think monstercable should get into gold-plated CB coax-cables, they'd make a killing.

WHAT?!! Do you mean you're just using old-fashioned BLACK coax?!?

...what a silly bunt!

 

[BOOTY MONSTER]

youre probally correct about monster cable . advertisement and ignorance of the truth are very powerful and commonly used marketing ploys . figgures dont lie but liers can figgure .

 

[Unit 194]

But i think monstercable should get into gold-plated CB coax-cables, they'd make a killing.

I think that's the coax KingCobra_CDX882 is using !