View Single Post
Old 12-Aug-2020, 8:03 PM   #13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 409
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