Hi Steve,

I compared them "head-to-head" only once (with the AOR WL-500 mounted
in a window in the back of my house, almost directly under the
Wellbrook in the attic) and the Wellbrook still performed better (5-20
dB at the time). (I cannot mount the WL-500 in the attic where I have
the Wellbrook.) I did not perform a comprehensive test, however.

The preselector on the WL-500 is not critical at all. You do have to
switch between 3-9 and 9-30 MHz, but the "tuning" knob is very easy to
use and you do not need to adjust it within a meter band; you can do
so, of course, if you want to get the very last bit of gain, but,
frankly, I have rarely had to do that.

FYI: The Wellbrook has no preselector and I was advised by the factory
that none is necessary. Some may even degrade reception, I was told.

All the best,

Joe

(Steve) wrote in message . com...
Wow, thanks Joe for all the info on the WL-500 and the Wellbrook. I'm
always trying to learn more about these antennas.

You mentioned that the Wellbrook noticeably outperforms the WL-500, at
least in part due to the fact that the Wellbrook is in the attic away
from noise sources while the WL-500 is very close to noise sources.
I'd imagine that the Wellbrook would outperform the WL-500 even if
they were being used under similar conditions, but I wonder: Have you
ever pitted them against one another, head-to-head, just for the heck
of it? If so, just how much better was the Wellbrook's performance? Or
are they even comparable?

Also, how sensitive or 'fine grained' is the preselector on the
WL-500? I know that on the AOR LA-350, you have to adjust the
preselector for optimum reception even on frequencies that are quite
close to one another. The downside of this is that it means you
constantly have to twiddle with the preselector, but the upside is
that it allows you to 'peak up' on whatever frequency you're listening
to with pretty dramatic results.

Thanks,

Steve