Televes DATBoss Mix LR VS the Winegard 8200U + AP-8700 Preamp.

[Sev]

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 so as to avoid a situation that creates overloading.

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

[Sev]

DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT

[Sev]

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]

DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200


DAT


8200U

[Sev]

DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U


DAT


8200U

[Sev]

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]

Some readings from the H30D3 from this morning.

[Sev]

[Sev]

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

[JoeAZ]

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?????

[Sev]

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.

[bobsgarage]

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...

[JoeAZ]

Originally Posted by Sev

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!

[bobsgarage]

Hey Joe,

I have to ask, what's the reason for the negativity toward Sev and Televes?

I'm not here to argue with you but I wanted to at least tell you, I've had a pretty darn good results with the DAT BOSS LR Mix.

I found it to be a very good antenna. I tested it against the 91XG & HDB91X. I used the Kitz KT-200 which in my mind is the very best stand alone pre-amp available. Very close to the Televes max output.



I was impressed with the results. Don't get me wrong, those two other antennas are the best of the rest for UHF. I also did not test the VHF High simply because UHF was my goal..






As far as the Televes preamp you stated:

"Again, that is simply untrue.*You also fail to note that the Televes' preamp cannot be replaced as is the case with the Winegard."

I was shocked by that statement so I called Televes, here's the response.:

"Of course it (pre-amp) can be replaced, we provide a new dipole assembly, same as you’d have to replace a Winegard mast amp that fails. Funny part is we typically provide them free of cost because they fail so few times. Only if struck by lightning bad."

I'm definitely not trying to rock the boat but I believe they have a good product and use technology that nobody else uses with the adjustable gain preamp. I firmly believe the reason most antenna companies don't step up to this type of technology is cost.

[Sev]

Originally Posted by JoeAZ

As long as those results do not involve an unfair advantage!

Please.

There are plenty of people on these sites that use sophisticated testing equipment. Calveras and Tripelo being among them. If I recall correctly 300ohm and Stampeder also did.
Rabbit77 and Hol_lands also have their own equipment for testing and modeling.

Largely ignore VHF Hi comparison? I have RF9 at 60 degrees and RF10 at 260 degrees 100 miles out that transmits at 40kW. So it is low power. There is also RF7 100 miles that transmits at 55kW's. Another low power transmitter.

Obviously the model I am testing would be useless for RF5. Perhaps you missed where I stated quite clearly it is not a solution for VHF LO.
That being said. They do have a model with a VHF LO dipole. Which I am not currently in possession of.

So now you are bringing in single cut antenna's as a complaint?
LOL. Now that is amusing.
Perhaps i'll rustle up a bunch of old SITCO, Wade or Blonder tongue single cuts to test.

And it is patently untrue that the preamp in the Televes cant be replaced.
Obviously you never looked inside one.

From what I understand. If one fails.
Televes sends the entire tail section as a replacement for free rather than making the customer disassemble the unit and replace the actual preamp.
I think you would agree that is pretty good customer care.

Unfair advantage? Really?

So basically what you are saying in that statement is that due to the DAT's design and technology, in the current test, it is superior to the 8200U + AP-8700 within the bandwidth in which it operates.

[JoeAZ]

Originally Posted by Sev

Please.

There are plenty of people on these sites that use sophisticated testing equipment. Calveras and Tripelo being among them. If I recall correctly 300ohm and Stampeder also did.
Rabbit77 and Hol_lands also have their own equipment for testing and modeling. That is not "real world" evaluation.

Largely ignore VHF Hi comparison? I have RF9 at 60 degrees and RF10 at 260 degrees 100 miles out that transmits at 40kW. So it is low power. There is also RF7 100 miles that transmits at 55kW's. Another low power transmitter. Hi VHF, 40Kw/55Kw are not "low power."

Obviously the model I am testing would be useless for RF5. Perhaps you missed where I stated quite clearly it is not a solution for VHF LO.
That being said. They do have a model with a VHF LO dipole. Which I am not currently in possession of. Then your statement that the Televes
works well in your area is false. WCYB is on Rf 5.

So now you are bringing in single cut antenna's as a complaint?
LOL. Now that is amusing. Not a complaint, an observation
Perhaps i'll rustle up a bunch of old SITCO, Wade or Blonder tongue single cuts to test.

And it is patently untrue that the preamp in the Televes cant be replaced.
Obviously you never looked inside one.

From what I understand. If one fails.
Televes sends the entire tail section as a replacement for free rather than making the customer disassemble the unit and replace the actual preamp.
I think you would agree that is pretty good customer care.

Unfair advantage? Really? Yes, Really!!!!!!!!!!!

So basically what you are saying in that statement is that due to the DAT's design and technology, in the current test, it is superior to the 8200U + AP-8700 within the bandwidth in which it operates.

The Televes does very well in a very limited set of parameters.
The Winegard, performs well over a much larger and much more
likely scenario that most consumers are likely to encounter.
In my years of installing antennas, I cannot recall one instance where
the engineering data proved accurate in real world reception.
PLEASE, Go ahead and make more colorful, impressive and largely
useless graphs and plots. I'll be laughing all the way to the bank!

[Sev]

I would suggest that they are low power. Especially when compared to for instance RF18 (1000kW) RF26 (930 kW) and RF36 (1000kW).

Perhaps you consider those power levels equivalent to 40kW and 55kW?

Nothing false about it working well in my area.
RF35 is also the WCYB.

The DAT picks up RF35 consistently You seemed to have missed that particular point of information.
It is rather important as it is providing complete coverage of the local affiliates.

Your observation concerning single cut antennas was both inane and irrelevant.
It had no pertinence to the test results being presented.

And once again. I will point out. My testing is not being done in a lab.
Unless you consider the great outdoors a lab with controlled conditions.

I am quite certain that both the intellectual and technical contributions you have thus contributed to this thread have in some manner impressed the TVFool audience observing this discussion.

[JoeAZ]

Originally Posted by Sev

I would suggest that they are low power. Especially when compared to for instance RF18 (1000kW) RF26 (930 kW) and RF36 (1000kW). ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in MAJOR cities that use
VHF for those broadcasts are all in the 40-55 Kw range.

Perhaps you consider those power levels equivalent to 40kW and 55kW?

Nothing false about it working well in my area.
RF35 is also the WCYB. Instead of watching the originating broadcast
of WCYB, you watch a translator rebroadcasting it. That is certainly
not the same and likely of lower audio/video quality. Further, translators
are NOT a priority for engineers in these days of cost cutting. When the
fail and they all do fail from time to time, engineers are in no hurry
to get them repaired.

The DAT picks up RF35 consistently You seemed to have missed that particular point of information.
It is rather important as it is providing complete coverage of the local affiliates. You mean "fill in" coverage for WCYB.

Your observation concerning single cut antennas was both inane and irrelevant. That is about as inane and irrelevant as you suggesting that
an antenna designed for a small portion of the broadcast spectrum
would perform similarly to an antenna designed for a larger portion of
the broadcast spectrum
It had no pertinence to the test results being presented.
It is YOU who are IMPERTINENT.

And once again. I will point out. My testing is not being done in a lab.
Unless you consider the great outdoors a lab with controlled conditions.

I am quite certain that both the intellectual and technical contributions you have thus contributed to this thread have in some manner impressed the TVFool audience observing this discussion.

Coming from someone called "SEV" has me rolling with laughter!!!!!!

[Sev]

Originally Posted by JoeAZ

Coming from someone called "SEV" has me rolling with laughter!!!!!!

In major cities perhaps. That does not make them blowtorches.
I'm in the Appalachian mountains. So once again you are attempting to compare apples to oranges.

It could be a translator. However.
Both RF35 and RF5 are on the same tower at 2438' transmitting at 29.9 kW's and in 1080i and DD 5.1.

Perhaps you would like to point out specifically where I stated that the DAT would perform the same or similarly as a dissimilar antenna designed to include the VHF LO portion of the spectrum.

You do realize that the broadcast spectrum now only extends to the RF 36? Yes?
Anything beyond that is now legacy.

All antennas are now limited to a small portion of the broad cast spectrum due to the repack.
So again. You point is neither accurate and is irrelevant.

And now that it appears that you have sunk to the level of engaging in personal attacks.

I accept your surrender.

Please seek help for your TDS (Televes Derangement Syndrome).

Thank you for playing.

[jruano]

I should mention that for when needed/desired, there is a version of this antenna with BI capabilities.