View Single Post
Old 1-Jan-2012, 7:15 PM   #4
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
I have no first hand experience with these antennas.

The manufactures published performance data clearly indicates these are designed to perform well at frequencies above the US television channel assignments. (The US high-VHF band is from 174 MHz to 216 MHz. The US UHF band is from 470 MHz to 698 MHz) The peak gain is in the cell-phone/PCS band... too bad your cell phone isn't equipped with a 75 ohm F connection.

One of our on going problems here in the US is that many existing antenna designs are optimized for the pre-2009 UHF spectrum that included channels 52 to 69 (698 MHz to 806 MHz). This results in antennas that have less gain than would be possible if they were optimized to cover a narrower range of frequencies. (As I say this, I get frustrated at the FCC's decision to sell spectrum out from under the tax paying public. I long for the days when UHF antenna design needed to account for more bandwidth.)
Thanks for your reply GroundUrMast.

Your correct, the Fracarro's bandwidth extends well beyond what's now needed in the US. However, so do most of the current popular antennas sold in the US.

Current N. American Broadcast UHF: 14-51, 470 MHz to 698 MHz
BLU920F: 470 862 MHz
Sigma 6HD: 470 862 MHz
A.D. 91XG: 470 MHz to 806 MHz

Is the additional 56 MHz of bandwidth of the Fracarro antennas that significant compared to most US UHF antannas that extend to 806 MHz?

For those who want a smaller antenna for windload or appearance concerns, it would be interesting to know how 3-ft Sigma 6HD compares to the 7.75-ft 91XG?

I too have been asking when we would see 7-51 VHF-hi/UHF or 14-51 UHF antennas since the begining of the DTV transition.
Living in the fringe (2Edge)

Broadcast TV - a vital public resource

Just say "no" to a never-ending subscription TV bill that increases faster than the rate of inflation.
otadtvman is offline   Reply With Quote