-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Imax 2000 or maco v-5/8th
- Thread starter radioman24
- Start date
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
I have to say that review was well a written subjective one dealing mostly with the construction/assembly of an antenna. Unfortunately, it gives no objective facts dealing with performance. A very nice 'non-answer' to the question.
- 'Doc
- 'Doc
Go with the maco trust me. It takes about an hour to assemble and tune but it is simple to do. It will out last and out perform the imax 2000, hands down.
19, what if anything did you find out when you had a chance to check out the problem you posted about with your V58 a while back?
Well I went over a few connections and did a little tuning and that seemed to get it under control. I am going to do some fine tuning later on and I will let you know how that goes. Or I may let you know something before that if the problems arises again.
If you are talking about a Maco 5/8 ground plane vs the Imax 2000.......no comparison, Maco all the way.
these are both good antennas as far as performance is concerned.as for construction well they are both ok the imax at 24 feet is wobbly but always seems to come back the maco at 19 1/2 is a bit flimsy,the loop has a hose clamp and the rest of the clamps are crap and if you dont really tighten these loops down a sparrow could land on it and move it.broad banded the imax is the clear winner when tuned right will work 25.165-28.5 without a tuner.i own both of these antennas and swapped them out at 40 feet to the base and the imax had 1s unit over the maco.assembly well imax takes 2 minutes to put together and is usually pretuned for cb and the maco can get a little frusterating till you figure it out.
Attachments
1342's experience with signal is far from typical when replacing the Imax 2000 with the V58. Look around a little more and you'll find over 90% of people who have tried this while eliminating other variables have found the exact opposite. The Maco has the stronger signal. With respect to bandwidth, that specification has been misinterpreted. I've seen similar posted but what they fail to tell you is that is the approximate maximum range the antenna can be tuned over. It will only cover a small portion of that range at any one tuning setting.
If you have a 4 watt radio with a stock mic and want to pay more for a simple antenna that has a little less signal with 10 times more RFI problems, buy the Imax 2000. If you can read instructions, like the idea of paying less, having more signal, and being able to run power without nearly as much interference, buy the V58 new on eBay. This is not based on changing one antenna for another. It's based on solid technical theory and countless controlled antenna swaps. The real 5/8 wave groundplane beats the fishing pole.
i have both as well and all though i see know real difference in performance with local talk, the IMAX 2000 knocks the sox off the maco for ME in Dx land. i have made more contacts over more miles with the Imax then the maco could even think about. also i can run the Imax on 10 meters. the Imax 2000 and the Antron 99 are far more broad banded then the maco. i had the maco first but a friend of mine was running the Imax and had much more usble band width thats why i changed. i run both mine at 38 feet. when the beam goes back up the maco is comming down and may find it self in the garden supporting tomato plants.
To be fair I will admit I haven't personally swept the Imax 2000 for bandwidth. Being that the matching section is made from thin wire that has more resistance with the skin effect then the heavy loop on the Maco, this would lower the "Q" of the antenna. That opens the possibility for more bandwidth but usually comes at the expense of maxium gain on the center frequency and power handling.
It will take much more to support claims of increased signal in the distance. Without having the full length radials the radiation angle of the 5/8 wave is increased. That puts less power on the horizon and creates a sharp angle for skip reaching the ionosphere where it wants to poke through rather then bounce back. When it doesn't, it could have an advantage in short skip only however, skip is notoriously inaccurate for comparing antennas.
It will take much more to support claims of increased signal in the distance. Without having the full length radials the radiation angle of the 5/8 wave is increased. That puts less power on the horizon and creates a sharp angle for skip reaching the ionosphere where it wants to poke through rather then bounce back. When it doesn't, it could have an advantage in short skip only however, skip is notoriously inaccurate for comparing antennas.
i dont know where you come up with these figures but maybe you should actually test a maco againsts a imax 2000but thats ok because you will state that the 19.5 foot antenna performs better than the 24.5 foot antenna been there done that the funny thing about that is the imax is 5 feet taller but i know you will have a answer for that too but ok.
my tests were performed at 50-100 miles but i am sure you have an answer for that espescially since you have not owned either antenna but go ahead respond.
Hello all,
Could it be that the statement "better for DX' is based on the sproadic E season?
Wich makes use of the 'higher angles".
DX accross the pond (europa/asia/Africa) would need a lower angle of radiation.
Roughly you could say:
Each antenna withouth a very high impedance feedpoint (read anything else than either a halvewave or full wave would bennifit of radials to lower the angle.
The amount of radials and length is already discussed on the forum.
Height is a important factor not taking in mind with the above.
Kind regards,
Henry.
Could it be that the statement "better for DX' is based on the sproadic E season?
Wich makes use of the 'higher angles".
DX accross the pond (europa/asia/Africa) would need a lower angle of radiation.
Roughly you could say:
Each antenna withouth a very high impedance feedpoint (read anything else than either a halvewave or full wave would bennifit of radials to lower the angle.
The amount of radials and length is already discussed on the forum.
Height is a important factor not taking in mind with the above.
Kind regards,
Henry.