Actually the 2016 has some advantages. Although the other will have
higher
UHF gain, it has no gain and no protection against multipath on the VHF
frequencies. The 2016 will be flatter with a cleaner front to back
pattern
(although lower gain). If you have no hills or tall buildings and the
source is on a single tower, then the other may be better.

Yeah I'm kinda leaning towards the 2016. But can you
explain why the 1080 has no protection from multi-path?
Are you saying that the 2016 is far more "directional"
than the 1080?

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from behind
and around you.. Sweeping the elements has the effect of allowing the
elements to be better matched at odd multiples. The 2016 will have a broad
front lobe (less directional) have good bandwidth, and signals from behind
will be blockedfor UHF and VHF. It's drawback will be ice and wind loading.
Still I would have really liked a 1080 with a few (like 2 or 3) more dipoles
out behind for a better protection against reflections . I scratch my head
to see a 15 db corner reflector UHF and 0db VHF dipole together. As if the
VHF were so strong it was an afterthought. I have a wee bit more than that
(same UHF but with 7 VHF dipoles) with some elevation looking at a mountain
site about 75 miles away. My elevation just barely allows the signal to
clear a pass 10 miles away and I have perfect Anolog reception while
neighbors who are one stop closer struggle for signal.

In fact, I have used the antenna for 2m SSB with 10 watts.


Don't forget about good quality RG-6 for your feedline, and keep it as short
as possible (but it is better to get the antenna higher to clear the next
door building). This is more critical for UHF stations (perhaps why 1080
went that way).

Depending on your terrain. If there are hills or tall buildings you will
want a sharper, higher gain antenna then add attenuators or tilt
compensation to reduce the reflections. Saving $20 or $40 can wind up a
waste of money.

Yes I do have on bi brick two story building right in
front of me in direction antenna must be pointed.
sigh

That is a complication but not if your antenna can just see across the roof
of the other building, then it can actually help. If the main signal source
is reduced, reflections will be more pronounced. The problem with digital,
all you have is a bar graph. Reception problems are totally masked. The
reception problems that degrade Analog still degrade Digital, you just can't
see it. I have seen situations where there is lots of signal on the bar
graph, but the picture still breaks up because of distortion of the signal.
So while Analog is still there, get your antenna aligned and locked down and
hope no one builds another building.

Sometiimes pointing the antenna at a tall building or mountain will give a
better signal because all stations are bouncing from that building..

If you can stand on your roof with binocculars and see the broadcasting
site, and there are no 12-100 story buildings or mountains around, put your
antenna there and be done with it. Keep in mind that if you find yourself
running 75 feet of coax, it would be like putting up an $80 antenna just to
shorten the coax to 35 feet.



Anyway, its all just commercial liberal commie brainwashing and
propaganda. What channel has the Rifleman and Andy Griffith still?

Aint THAT the truth!!

I've seriously thought abt giving up broadcast TV and
just watching everything off the Internet such as
hulu.com. Serious!!

At least on hulu.com I can still watch Andy Griffith,
twilight zone, etc!!