Quote:
|
The reasons that I recommend all channel antennas is that longer elements at the back of the antenna reject multipath at the back of the antenna better then a 7 thru 69 antenna ,
|
A novel (and possibly original) hypothesis. Fortunately, it is easy to test for validity (or lack thereof).
Select the most comparable 7-69 to the 2-69 antenna suggested from Winegard's lineup since you recommended one of their antennas. Compare the polar plots that are available for channels 7-69 between each model. If your theory is correct, the 2-69 variant of the antenna will exhibit both a narrower forward beam width, higher comparable peak gains, and will simultaneously suppress the side and rear lobes to a greater degree.
If this shows that there is narrower beam width with greater suppression of side and rear lobes in the range of channels 7-69 for the 2-69 antenna as compared to the 7-69 antenna, then your hypothesis has merit. If it doesn't, your theory doesn't hold up.