Watson Gainer and Super Gainer Antennas

[Skibum]

I just got done with a weekend of testing the new Watson Gainer and Super Gainer portable antennas on my BC 396T

The results were quite dissapointing.

Watson Gainer:

Low Band: Worse than the factory antenna
High Band: Much worse than the factory antenna
UHF: A little better than the factory antenna
800: A little better than the factory

Super Gainer:

Low Band: A little better than the factory antenna
High Band: A LOT better than the factory antenna
UHF: Worse that the factory antenna
800: Way worse than the factory antenna

ScannerMaster has graciously agreed to accept both antennas for return.
I'll be testing the Austin Condor against the factory unit this week.

 

[mjthomas59]

I'd be interested to hear your test results on the Austin Condor. I bought one but don't use it much because of how large and ugly it is. I never really noticed much improvement on reception over the stock antenna, and i do believe my RH77CA out performs it hands down.

 

[stingray327]

I just got done with a weekend of testing the new Watson Gainer and Super Gainer portable antennas on my BC 396T

The results were quite dissapointing.

Watson Gainer:

Low Band: Worse than the factory antenna
High Band: Much worse than the factory antenna
UHF: A little better than the factory antenna
800: A little better than the factory

Super Gainer:

Low Band: A little better than the factory antenna
High Band: A LOT better than the factory antenna
UHF: Worse that the factory antenna
800: Way worse than the factory antenna

ScannerMaster has graciously agreed to accept both antennas for return.
I'll be testing the Austin Condor against the factory unit this week.

I believe I am using that antenna Watson Y??? can't remember number but it is black and a thin indoor handheld whip antenna.

 

[Skibum]

I just got the Condor... MAN what a difference!
Early testing shows this as a far better (and fatter) antenna.

I'll post more detailed resuts after using it for a few days.

 

[stingray327]

I just got the Condor... MAN what a difference!
Early testing shows this as a far better (and fatter) antenna.

I'll post more detailed resuts after using it for a few days.

Does the Condor cover all multiple bands and how long is it?
Where do you get it from and the cost?

 

[Skibum]

The Condor by Austin is advertized as covering 150-174, 450-512, 806-896

It is 12 inches long with a BNC connector on the end all fully encased in "rubber duckie" material. (This means you need to use the adapter with the 396) The antenna is very thick, looking more like a mast than an antenna. It is probably 1 1/2 times the thickness of the stock antenna. It is very flexible, but because of the thickness you arent gonna be tying knots with it.

After the first 12 hours I am still very impressed with its performance.
On 800 reception I went from 1 -2 bars to 3-4 bars signal strength.
More signal comparisons for other bands coming as I get the chance.

I purchased the antenna from ScannerMaster in Mass. It was $29.95.

 

[stingray327]

The Condor by Austin is advertized as covering 150-174, 450-512, 806-896

It is 12 inches long with a BNC connector on the end all fully encased in "rubber duckie" material. (This means you need to use the adapter with the 396) The antenna is very thick, looking more like a mast than an antenna. It is probably 1 1/2 times the thickness of the stock antenna. It is very flexible, but because of the thickness you arent gonna be tying knots with it.

After the first 12 hours I am still very impressed with its performance.
On 800 reception I went from 1 -2 bars to 3-4 bars signal strength.
More signal comparisons for other bands coming as I get the chance.

I purchased the antenna from ScannerMaster in Mass. It was $29.95.

Won't be able to monitor the CHP on the 42.000 freqs.

 

[W4KRR]

The Condor by Austin is advertized as covering 150-174, 450-512, 806-896

It is 12 inches long with a BNC connector on the end all fully encased in "rubber duckie" material. (This means you need to use the adapter with the 396) The antenna is very thick, looking more like a mast than an antenna. It is probably 1 1/2 times the thickness of the stock antenna. It is very flexible, but because of the thickness you arent gonna be tying knots with it.

After the first 12 hours I am still very impressed with its performance.
On 800 reception I went from 1 -2 bars to 3-4 bars signal strength.
More signal comparisons for other bands coming as I get the chance.

I purchased the antenna from ScannerMaster in Mass. It was $29.95.

I also have an Austin Condor antenna. It's probably one of the best "all band" rubber duck antennas available. In fact it's one of the few scanner antennas available that's marketed as an "all band" scanner antenna, as opposed to being a dual band amateur antenna. It is better on all bands that the stock antenna, IMO. The only drawback is that it's long, fat, and ugly, but it does work very well.

VHF low band is another matter; a long telescoping antenna will work best for VHF low band reception, but at the expense of poorer reception on other bands.

 

[Skibum]

Agreed.

It's BIG

It's FAT

It's UGLY

but it WORKS!!!!

There is a noticeable difference in reception on all bands that I have tested on.

The latest test was monitoring aircraft, and the difference is startling over the factory antenna.

 

[W4KRR]

Agreed.

It's BIG

It's FAT

It's UGLY

but it WORKS!!!!

There is a noticeable difference in reception on all bands that I have tested on.

The latest test was monitoring aircraft, and the difference is startling over the factory antenna.

Skibum, have you tested it on VHF low band? I know it isn't really designed to cover that band, but where I am, there's very little traffic down there.

However you test it, please post your results for everyone.

 

[Skibum]

Hi Ken

What I did to test lowband was to use a friend transmitting on a CB channel.
With the factory antenna, the signal level was about 3 bars with the Condor, the signal was 5 bars sometimes going to 4. Not quite lowband commercial, but it should give some kind of indication of the low freq performance. If I find a reliable low band transmission, I'll update this post.

 

[W4KRR]

Hi Ken

What I did to test lowband was to use a friend transmitting on a CB channel.
With the factory antenna, the signal level was about 3 bars with the Condor, the signal was 5 bars sometimes going to 4. Not quite lowband commercial, but it should give some kind of indication of the low freq performance. If I find a reliable low band transmission, I'll update this post.

Good to know, but not too surprising that the Condor would outperform the stock duck on low band, as it is longer.

An antenna that does equally well on all popular scanner bands is hard to find, most do a good job on one band, and are a compromise on all other bands. The Condor does all bands pretty well, if you don't mind big and ugly. But bigger is what it takes, especially on VHF high and lower bands.

 

[stingray327]

The Super Gainer Watson Y881 seems to be working fine with mine since I can't get a Antenna Specialist Mon-51 Magnetic antenna on car.

 

[Skibum]

Working fine is not any kind of indication as to the antenna performance.
Did you compare it to another antenna in the same location?

I've now done the same tests from the exact same location using 4 different antennas, and the Watsons were the worst. Did they work? Of course.

 

[GTO_04]

I agree the Condor is a fine antenna. But it's wayyy too big to use on a 396 unless you have it secured in a bracket. The slightest breeze would make it fall over.

GTO_04

 

[Skibum]

I use a modified mobile phone dash mount on my desk and it is fine.

(The mount attaches to the button and allows the scanner to sit at a slight angle on my desk)

 

[Turbo68]

I use the WATSON-W801 super gainer to monitor the Airbans and its an excellent performer.

Regards Lino.

 

[Skibum]

Hi Lino

If you reference my initial post, you will see that I said the SuperGainer worked well on VHF.
What the thread is about is overall performance across all bands.

 

[stingray327]

Working fine is not any kind of indication as to the antenna performance.
Did you compare it to another antenna in the same location?

I've now done the same tests from the exact same location using 4 different antennas, and the Watsons were the worst. Did they work? Of course.

Yes I did and there was not a difference. But let me point out that it was the Antenna Specialist Mon-51 magnet mount which I use on another car (Excellent performance) but can't use on this car so I put the antenna inside the car just like the Watson is an inside antenna. The Watson 881 supergainer didn't perform any better or worse than the magnetic AS Mon-51 in hatch. It is alot more neater too and if there is no difference of course I will use the smaller Watson Y881 antenna.

 

[3rdwatch]

Glad I read this before making my purchase. I am in the market for a good antenna for my Pro-164