TV Fool  

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Special Topics > Antennas

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:09 PM   #1
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
Arrow Televes DATBoss Mix LR VS the Winegard 8200U + AP-8700 Preamp.

I am currently testing the Televes DATBoss MIX LR.
I am looking at this from the consumer perspective. Not the wild eye hobbyist. Which many of us are.
Now I under stand that there is some contention concerning how Televes arrives at its numbers.
That argument is nothing new concerning any antenna manufacturer past or present.

I would also point out we are beyond the days of the Quantum twin booms and Wade VIp's where materials and material costs are concerned.
Few if any are going to be willing to pay Blonder Tongue prices for a residential antenna when most people today mistakenly believe those silly mud flaps they stick on their wall are excellent antennas.

So with that in mind.


Assembly was easy.
Over all structurally is fairly solid. I noted a couple of mild structural issues that could be addressed with tighter tolerances where the upper and lower booms are concerned.
However most home owners would not even take notice of it.
Otherwise the over all design is pretty innovative and once assembled completely pretty solid over all.
The DATBoss comes with an integrated amplifier. That automatically adjust the gain to appropriate levels for each Transmitter.

My first run testing was with my local transmitters. That range from 4.9 and 6.9 miles out.
The topography is steep with intervening mountain ranges.
All the transmitters are 1 and 2 edge.

The second test run will be with my fringe transmitters out to 120 miles.
The First series of test against my Winegard 8200U with a Winegard AP-8700 Preamplifier.

The antennas are the same location and same height. I will lose a little time swapping out masts. It is unavoidable.
The DAT does not have VHF LO capability so any VHF LO Transmitters will no be included.
The Spectrometer I will be using is a Televes H30D3.
I will not be able to provide band scans or overlays with the device.
It will be individual reading per transmitter.

I have not made offsets for any loss in either the coax or the Winegard LS 275C splitter that is feeding the spectrometer and the HDHomerun.

Most will recognize the traces generated by Rabbitears. .


A couple images to provide a base line of information.



At 60 Degrees
RF28


RF9


255 Degrees


Hope fully I will not be creating to much confusion.
In the first series photos are the Rabbitears trace generated.
The traces are devided by where I swapped antennas.
8200U data is on the left. DAT Data is on the right.
Please note the CNR line.

The date on this Data is 8-6-2020
Antenna Aim is at 60 degrees

RF9


RF14


RF16


RF28




RF35


From the Spectrometer.
I left RF16 because I missed saving one of the readings.

8200U

Last edited by Sev; 11-Aug-2020 at 12:03 PM.
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:12 PM   #2
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:18 PM   #3
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
This next set of data came from the morning of 8-7-2020
Antenna Aim Point is 260 Degrees
Fringe Transmitters.
I switched out the DAT for the 8200U
Gap in transmission is the time of antenna swap.

RF10


RF15


RF16


RF18


RF19


RF24 (53 Miles)


RF26


RF29


RF31


RF36 (79 miles)
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:26 PM   #4
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200


DAT


8200U
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:32 PM   #5
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:38 PM   #6
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
I left the DAT sit facing 260 degrees for about 48 hours so far. 8-10-2020
Keep in mind these transmitters are between 100 - 120 miles out.

RF15


RF18


RF26


RF28


RF29


RF31


RF34
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:45 PM   #7
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
Some readings from the H30D3 from this morning.




















Last edited by Sev; 10-Aug-2020 at 6:54 PM.
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-Aug-2020, 6:46 PM   #8
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67







Last edited by Sev; 10-Aug-2020 at 6:55 PM.
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-Aug-2020, 11:53 AM   #9
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
3 days with the DAT pointed 260 degrees. 5 Transmitters decoding virtually uninterrupted.
You can see where I started playing with the DAT on the 6th.

RF15


RF18


RF26


RF31


RF34
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-Aug-2020, 11:53 PM   #10
JoeAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 390
All the colorful graphs and data are interesting.
Not certain it is fair to compare a true, "all channel"
antenna, Winegard 8200U to the Televes DATBoss Mix
LR. Since the Televes doesn't cover low VHF and the
Winegard does, your comparison is like comparing
a sports car and an SUV on a racetrack. All the "data"
in the lab do not often translate to "real world" experience.
What are YOUR conclusions?????
JoeAZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:51 PM   #11
Sev
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 67
First I would like to point out that the comparison was done under real world conditions.
Perhaps you missed my preamble and the topographic cross sections of the area between the antennas and the transmitters?

Now as far as comparisons as per each antennas capability to receive portions of the bandwidth.
That is neither here not there.
If I were comparing the UHF capability between the 9095 and the 8200U. It would be understood that there is an intrinsic limitation in the bandwidth capability of the 9095 due to the nature of its design.
The same would hold true if I switched out the 9095 for the CM-4257 S.D.Q or the 91XG.
Only UHF capabilities would be being compared.

Now in the above scenario which antennas would it be unfair to in those examples?
None in my opinion.
As the test would be focused only on the maximum range of the bandwidth of the antenna that utilizes the smaller area of the spectrum.

The same holds true between the DAT and 8200U.
The ability of the combined technology of each antenna and preamp to lock, hold and produce a decodable signal for the end user are being compared.

As far a conclusion goes.

Quite simply the innovative design of the Televes antenna combined with its Tforce technology, which has the ability to automatically adjust its gain to meet signal demand works.
This ability allows it to prevent overloading. Which is quite an important innovation. Fixed band preamps obviously lack this capability.

While it is not a solution for VHF LO. Its smaller and more compact design thus far both keeps up with and exceeds the 8200U when used in the local conditions that I experience.

While it cant be an apples to apples comparison because of the differences in technology.
What matters is the results you are achieving as you cross the finish line.
Sev is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 1:47 PM   #12
bobsgarage
Senior Member
 
bobsgarage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Beach Park IL
Posts: 293
UHF shootout

I have also had very good results with my pair of Televes DAT Boss antennas. I reviewed it on some other sites.

I recently had a shootout between the Antennas Direct 91XG, the XTreme Signal HDB91X and the Televes DAT BOSS LR Mix.

I'll try to bring it over here although this forum has not been the friendliest for me to work with.



I can post my results later if there's some interest. Let's see what happens...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20200802_093408_copy_1024x818.jpg (291.1 KB, 21 views)

Last edited by bobsgarage; Yesterday at 2:39 PM.
bobsgarage is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 8:03 PM   #13
JoeAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sev View Post
First I would like to point out that the comparison was done under real world conditions. Not sure I could agree with that. Not many consumers connect their antennas to sophisticated testing equipment.
Televisions and their tuners vary quite a bit.

Perhaps you missed my preamble and the topographic cross sections of the area between the antennas and the transmitters?

Now as far as comparisons as per each antennas capability to receive portions of the bandwidth.
That is neither here not there.
If I were comparing the UHF capability between the 9095 and the 8200U. It would be understood that there is an intrinsic limitation in the bandwidth capability of the 9095 due to the nature of its design.
The Televes is billed as VHF Hi and UHF, yet you largely ignored the VHF Hi channel comparisons.

The same would hold true if I switched out the 9095 for the CM-4257 S.D.Q or the 91XG.
Only UHF capabilities would be being compared. In your area, WCYB
broadcasts on Rf 5, the Televes would be useless in your area.
Most all areas have Hi VHF, yet you largely ignored that fact. In many
areas, Pittsburg, Buffalo, Philadelphia, etc, etc, etc Low VHF is used.
Consumers buying the Televes would be disappointed in the poor results
in those and other areas.


Now in the above scenario which antennas would it be unfair to in those examples?
None in my opinion.
Are you not familiar with "tuned" antennas where they were designed and
engineered to receive only one Rf frequency??? Those "tuned" antennas
did only one thing and they did it superbly. The larger the coverage of Rf
spectrum, the lower the results would be over that Rf spectrum.

As the test would be focused only on the maximum range of the bandwidth of the antenna that utilizes the smaller area of the spectrum.

The same holds true between the DAT and 8200U.
The ability of the combined technology of each antenna and preamp to lock, hold and produce a decodable signal for the end user are being compared.

As far a conclusion goes.

Quite simply the innovative design of the Televes antenna combined with its Tforce technology, which has the ability to automatically adjust its gain to meet signal demand works.
This ability allows it to prevent overloading. Which is quite an important innovation. Fixed band preamps obviously lack this capability.

While it is not a solution for VHF LO. Its smaller and more compact design thus far both keeps up with and exceeds the 8200U when used in the local conditions that I experience. Again, that is simply untrue. You also
fail to note that the Televes' preamp cannot be replaced as is the case with
the Winegard.


While it cant be an apples to apples comparison because of the differences in technology.
What matters is the results you are achieving as you cross the finish line.
As long as those results do not involve an unfair advantage!
JoeAZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Special Topics > Antennas


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT. The time now is 3:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © TV Fool, LLC