Fracarro antennas & AbilityHDTV ULNA?
Has anyone had any experience with the Italian Fracarro antennas sold in the US by http://www.abilityhdtv.com/ or Ability's ULNA?
Specifically: http://www.abilityhdtv.com/product-i...nna-pid57.html http://www.abilityhdtv.com/product-i...nna-pid58.html http://www.abilityhdtv.com/product-i...nna-pid65.html http://www.abilityhdtv.com/product-l...pg1-cid42.html http://abilityhdtv.com/info/antenna-...nd-all-abouts/ See also: http://sigma.fracarro.com/download/d...ng_extraUE.pdf http://sigma.fracarro.com/download/S...ure_eng_lr.pdf http://www.fracarro.com/internationa...deband_BLV.pdf http://www.fracarro.com/internationa...atalogo/16.pdf http://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13240666384475 1. How might the 3 ft Sigma6HD or the 8 ft BLU920F compare to the 7.75 ft 91XG? 2. How does the 4.9 ft BLV6F compare to the 8.3 ft YA-1713? 3. How does Ability's ULNA compare the CM-7777? Thank you |
Good for use in Western Europe
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.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televis...el_frequencies |
Gain versus length
Thanks for your reply. Agreed - there is not much of a selection for 14 to 51 or 7 to 51 antennas for the US market. Is an LPF-700 a recommended solution?
You're correct. Fracarro antennas are designed for European frequencies. However, gain versus length is an interesting comparison. Comparing the Fracarro gain graphs to similar US model spec sheets (that unfortunately do not provide gain graphs): VHF-hi = channels 7-13 (174 to 216 MHz)
UHF = 14-51 since 6/12/09 (470 to 698 Mhz)
Thoughts? |
Quote:
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. |
UHF = 14-51 since 6/12/09 (470 to 698 Mhz)
GRAPHS COMPARISONS:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the reply. Yagis: I've read many excellent reports on the tilt-able 91XG: 11.8 dBi (~9.65 dBd) @ 470 Hz The Fracarro sigma 6 & 9HD look appealing due to their respectable gain and smaller size - Less conspicuous & less wind-load.
I understand the new DB2/4e are designed for 14-51, which is excellent. Kudos to AD! DB4e: "Boresight gain"(?) 11.68 dBi (~ 9.53 dBd) @ 470 Hz When will they rescale the 91XG? (I suspect ADTech is probably very tired of this question. ;)) We live about 45 miles from DC & Balt and the majority of our reception is unfortunately 2edge. Additionally, a wall of very tall 30-yr old spruce trees stand between us and DC. When it rains 4.1 (RF 48) is very problematic due to multipath interference caused by the wind blowing the wall of evergreens - our biggest challenge. Harrisburg, Lancaster, & York PA are also possibilities. Windy ice storms are also a possible in our area. Which uhf antenna is best suited to our conditions? |
This is all offered in the spirit of being helpful...
You need to post a TVFool report to get definitive help. A summary of what I've seen so far: Yes, the Fracarro's published gain, as determined by their modelling, is a bit better than antennas like the 91-XG. published gain, as determined by AD's modelling. No, there's not been any independent modelling of the Fracarro yagis. Will the Fracarros hold up better to the elements than others? No one really knows, yet. Does X, Y, or Z property of the Fraccaros make them better for you? This is a tough call. Post your TVFool analysis to see what your antenna gain requirements are. At that point, we can help you in the cost/beneft analysis. Eventually, you need to buy something. All of us at a distance don't have any direct experience with the Fracarros, so we can only give you suggestions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A difference of less than 3 dB is approaching 'hair-splitting' in many reception situations. The effect of the large trees you've described will not likely be swept away with a small addition of antenna gain. In the end, I agree with DL, you'll need to buy something and install it. As the great Muppet Yoda said, "Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'" |
A tower that tall is not in the budget. Balt. (42 mi.), Harrisburg (65-68 mi.), Lancaster (59 mi.), & York (59 mi.) are the alternatives if DC becomes problematic due to the trees. We have a rotator. The trees currently are only an issue during a storm or perhaps when they're wet.
Agreed, I'm not interested in 'hair-splitting' small gain difference either. That's "A lot of heat for not much light." We just need sufficient gain for our goal of reliably receiving all networks. Is there a uhf yagi that resolves multi-path interference more effectively than the average? If so, that may help with the tree issue during a storm. |
My personal experience has been that for deep fringe applications, the combination of an XG-91 and a Y**713 is the pinnacle of consumer grade antennas. Those antennas have narrow forward beam patterns compared to panel and LPDA designs.
If I'm fighting multipath, I look to a narrow beam, high gain antenna. On the other hand, If fluttering foliage is the problem, I look to alternate mounting options and/or my chainsaw. Please don't be offended, I get the sense you hope for someone to step up and give you a money back guaranty or, you know in your gut that the solution is to get over or around the trees. I can't offer to buy an almost new Fracarro and I already own an XG91. |
See answers within your quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So there's probably no chance I will be able to find someone who has tested the two against each other. The 91XG (7,75' L) is obviously a known performer - no risk. The Fracarro Sigma are apealing due to their much smaller size (3' or 4.25'L) - less conspicuous & less wind resistance. Per Sigma 6HD brochure: Quote:
Since you own the YA-1713, have you seen these Amazon reviews? - #1 #2 Are their comments about build quality accurate? |
Absent body language and tone of voice, my previous comments could be read more than one way. Please be assured, I don't desire to offend you or your neighbors. You're in a tough spot. I wish I had a simple and inexpensive answer, but I don't. If I offended, please forgive me.
Quote:
I used "Y**713" to refer to both the Antennacraft and Winegard 10 element H-VHF Yagi products. I presently own an Antennacraft Y5713. Here in the Seattle area, I've come across both brands of the 10 element version and have concluded they are generally comparable in build quality. Though some will argue the merits of one or the other, I don't see enough difference to join in a debate. The integral balun used by Winegard can often be a plus. But if you need to gang or stack, I'd prefer the 300Ω balanced output of the Antennacraft which would allow me to use quarter-wave-length sections of 450Ω balanced line as the interconnecting phasing line. It's not a direct comparison, but my recent purchase of a Winegard HD8800 has been disappointing. I had to run to the hardware store to replace missing machine screws which could and should have been packaged better... and had simply fallen out of the box during shipping. There is no anodizing or other coating on the aluminum parts, so corrosion will be a problem a bit sooner. (To be fair, the Antennacraft is not anodized either.) The electrical performance of the HD8800 has been significantly less than lesser antennas, including a crudely built DIY 4-bay w/reflector. At present, modification of the combining harness is a 'back-burner' project (after some reading over at the Antenna Development section of digitalhome.ca). |
No problem GroundUrMast.
Quote:
Thanks for sharing your detailed experience with the Y**713 yagis and the HD-8800. It sounds like a sad state of affairs for consumer grade antennas - Even from Winegard! :( Have you seen this Antennacraft Y10-7-13 review? I suspect they are attempting to cut costs to compete with the majority of antennas that are made in China - the land of lead painted children's toys, toxic petfood, and even lethal generic IV heparin! :eek: :eek: :eek: At least Fracarro Sigma antennas are "completely made in Italy." :cool: |
Fracarro antenna owners?
Are there any forum members who would like to share their experience with Fracarro Sigma or BLU-series antennas?
|
How about a quick cost/benefit analysis?
Fracarro Sigma: 13 - 16 dBi gain; compact design, sturdy (?); 4 year warrentee; $130* AD 91-XG: 12 - 17 dBi gain: long, extensive use in Canada and the northeast US; limited lifetime warrentee; less than $60*. If I were you, I would buy the 91-XG for your UHF needs. *Shipping not included! |
Yes, if cost is the primary consideration, the 7.75' L 91XG is obvious choice.
However, the 3' L Sigma 6HD will be less prone to wind & ice damage. Which is better at resolving multipath interference - our biggest issue? |
Well I put in the note about the use of the 91-xg in cold, windy places to give you a feel for that. Plus, AD will work with you if something breaks.
I'll bet that multipath performance between the two will be similar. AD posts the antenna pattern at frequencies throughout its beamwidth while Fracarro posts only one. At some point, you can't fight physics - I'm pretty sure the Fracarro's patterns will vary in the same way. |
I will let you know as I continue to gather information on our application and comparison info on Fracarro vs. 91XG.
|
I dare say you will not find any definitive information regarding multipath performance. You'd have to do an A/B comparison at the same site to get anything concrete, since every location is different.
|
Quote:
I'm a little disappointed, since I was hoping it would have higher gain to pull in my low-UHF channels (RF 17 to 32). Alas, looks like I'll have to try and order a CM 3023 instead Yagi (trying to avoid 91XG since many reports says it's not good at low-UHF)... but... who knows, it may work in my situation/location... |
Quote:
Quote:
The Fracarro sigma 6 & 9HD have respectable gain:
|
Boresight gain is the same gain as quoted by others. What Antennas Direct is emphasizing is where in azimuth that gain exists: right along the axis of the boom of a Yagi or perpendicular to the plane of the elements of a bowtie array.
|
Precise aiming required?
Thanks for the info Dave.
AD is the 1st I've seen to use this term. Is AD saying that precise aiming is required with the new DB4e to acheive the max gain that's advertised? |
Quote:
|
91XG (14-69) vs. 4-Bay w/Reflector (7 or 14-51)?
Hi GroundUrMast,
Since you own both the 91XG and a DIY 4-bay w/reflector, I would appreciate if you could share you experience with them. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thank you |
Thanks for your patience
The M4 is a very good antenna, when compared to other 4-bay panel style designs. However, it's not surprising that a 4-bay panel antenna would have less gain and or directivity than of a long Yagi style like the 91XG or 10 element H-VHF products from Winegard and Antennacraft.
When you look at the performance graphs of the M4 (image 2 & 3 at http://m4antenna.eastmasonvilleweath...Data/Data.html) neither the UHF or H-VHF performance matches the lager commercial antennas. In particular, the H-VHF performance is modest at best... better than most other 4-bay panel products yes, but not at all comparable to an antenna designed for the H-VHF band. Also, looking at the polar plots for the M4... I'm quite confident that the directivity of the long Yagi style antennas will offer better multipath rejection than 4 or 8-bay panel antenna designs. Bottom line: I vote for the 91XG + 10 element H-VHF (with a slight bias toward the Antennacraft product given it's traditional 300Ω feed point). As an aside, is there any reasonable way to obtain right of way to mount an antenna on the other side of the offending trees? Besides a long coax run, there are theoretical ways to use WiFi or wired Ethernet to back haul one or more DTV signals... again, Thanks for your patience |
M4 vs HD8800
Well, my target channels are about 107miles away.
I built an M4 awhile back and compared it to an HD-8800 and they had about similar performance. My RF channels 20 and 22 would get a picture signal every once in a while at that distance.. say 20% uptime. Then I made another M4, attached it to the first one, to make an M8 (8-bay panel design), and for low UHF, I can now pick up RF 20 and 22 (OMNI and CHAN) about 80-90% of the time... of course the picture goes away during daytime or when it's hot (but I'm at work so I dont miss much), but I can watch these channels most of the time when I get home. The M8 was designed for low UHF so I can understand why it can't seem to pick high UHF (RF 26 and higher), so in this case I am considering if getting a 91XG will get me these upper channels (and still get RF 20 and 22)... hmm.. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 3:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © TV Fool, LLC