WShoots1 wrote:

The difference between "satisfactory" in receiving and in transmitting antennas
is that in receiving, one just needs an antenna that provides signals strong
enough over the on-frequency noise for the receiver to process.

In transmitting, the output has to be a strong as possible to be above the
noise in the desired receiving location. A better antenna will increase the
transmission's erp toward the desired direction.

In summary:
For better reception, put your money into the receiver.
For better transmission, put your money into the antenna.

Bill, K5BY

I certainly believe in buying a nice receiver, but honestly, the difference in performance I got switching from a horizontal loop near the house to a "Doty style" antenna that's 225 feet away from the house was more dramatic than you'd find if you compared
the performance of my best military receiver with a decent portable if they both used the same antenna.

Mark: I certainly believe in buying a nice receiver, but honestly, the
difference in performance I got switching from a horizontal loop near the house
to a "Doty style" antenna that's 225 feet away from the house was more dramatic
than you'd find if you compared the performance of my best military receiver
with a decent portable if they both used the same antenna.

Very interesting. Had you compared the performances of the mentioned receivers
on each antenna? In other words, did you find that the "Doty" helped the
portable more than it helped the military receiver? Or something like that.

Bill, K5BY

WShoots1 wrote:

Mark: I certainly believe in buying a nice receiver, but honestly, the
difference in performance I got switching from a horizontal loop near the house
to a "Doty style" antenna that's 225 feet away from the house was more dramatic
than you'd find if you compared the performance of my best military receiver
with a decent portable if they both used the same antenna.

Very interesting. Had you compared the performances of the mentioned receivers
on each antenna? In other words, did you find that the "Doty" helped the
portable more than it helped the military receiver? Or something like that.

Bill, K5BY

The only "portable" I'm using these days is an AOR 7030+ that's been mounted in a custom cabinet for portable operation. It wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I've had three antenna systems over the last several years, and did a head to head check between the two antennas I had a few years ago with a Dak portable, and an R8.

I think even Drew, who wrote those gushing ads for the DAK would agree the R8 is a much better radio, but when hooked to a 50-60 ft random wire stapled to the rafters of my attic, it couldn't hear signals the DAK could pick up with my 150 foot horizontal
loop.

The strongest signal on the attic antenna at those frequencies was RFI from all the electronic stuff in my house.

The Loop antenna probably cost about $10 more to build than the attic random wire because it used more wire and I needed some rope to hold it up.

And that's really my point - while a nicer radio is still worth having, most people will get the most bang for the buck from improving the antenna design and location.

My only notes about the performance difference between the first two antennas are the Loop seemed to have double the signal strength, and half the noise floor of the attic wire.

My "Doty" style antenna is just 65 feet long, but because of the distance from the house, the underground coax, and the impedance matching transformer, my Harris indicates the s/n ratio averages more than 20db better than the loop.

Regards,

Mark