• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Channel Master Monitenna 5094A Base Station Scanner Antenna

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,026
#1
I was wondering if anyone had any personal experience with the Channel Master Monitenna 5094A base station scanner antenna. I was just fortunate enough to purchase one brand-new in the factory box even though they were discontinued by Channel Master back around 2000.

The original version of this antenna covered 4 bands (VHF-Low, VHF-High, UHF and UHF-T) and was model 5094. The antenna design was later updated to cover 5 bands (added 800-912 MHz to the original 4 bands) and was model 5094A. According to the Channel Master 1990 catalog they also marketed a 5095A Monitenna complete antenna kit that included the 5094A antenna along with "5-Ft. Tri-Mast Mount, 2 1/2-Ft. Extension, 2 Standouts, 50-Ft. RG-59U Coaxial Cable, 4-Double Headed Nails and 4 Sealing Washers." That 5095A complete antenna kit is actually what I just purchased.

I had the 4-band version of this antenna back around 1980 and it was a VERY SOLID performer at the time on the 4 bands it covered. I'm wondering if anyone has used the 5-band version and specifically was curious how it performed on 800-900. From some online research that I have done this Channel Master antenna is claimed to be superior on VHF-Low and 800 when compared to the Antennacraft ST2 Scantenna even though both antennas have similar designs.

I have attached the instruction sheet for the 5094A 5-band antenna for those who may be unfamiliar with the design. Any personal feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
 

Attachments

chief21

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
888
Location
Summer - western NC; Winter - Tampa Bay FL
#2
This is the same (or very similar) antenna more recently marketed by Radio Shack and others as the AntennaCraft ST-2 Scantenna. It was very popular with the scanning crowd but, unfortunately, has been out of production since the Radio Shack bankruptcy.

I've had several ST-2's over the years (and still have one in use currently). They work pretty well across most bands, including 800, but they're often not sturdy enough to survive extreme weather conditions (high winds, ice) when mounted in open areas. I've read that the earlier versions were even less sturdy and often needed to be reinforced by owners.

John AC4JK
 

rbm

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
1,394
Location
Upstate New York
#5
Had 2 of the 5094A's in NJ, gave them both away in 2012 when I moved to FL. Were excellent on VHF low and high and UHF 460 to 500. Were quiet on 800.
I agree with that statement.

I also had two of them when I lived in NJ and they were the first antennas I put up when I moved to NY around 1985.

Great on VHF, MilAir, and SatCom. More like a dummy load at 800 MHz

Rich
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
2,802
Location
ILL
#6
I have (3) 5094A, there the best i have ever owned on all bands including 700-800, thats if you use good coax....I use LMR400 50' and there fantastic but getting old....
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
1,024
Location
Marietta, Ohio
#7
Yes the 5094A does a fine job on 800mz for me, to bad Channel Master stopped making this antenna. My 5094A has been up for several years.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
198
#8
Mine always worked great at 800Mhz. The antenna is ruined at the higher frequencies by poor coax. You have to use good coax or the attenuation at UHF is high with any antenna. RG6 is lossy , especially that quad shield wal-mart garbage. Use a better cable like 9913 or LMR400. Even with those you see around 4db loss per 100ft. You want to really lose signal run RG58. It has like 20db loss.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,026
#10
FYI if anyone is in the market for a Channel Master 5094A Monitenna, there is currently one up for sale on eBay. It is brand-new, in-the-box and it's the 5-band 5094A model which covers 800-900 MHz in addition to VHF-High, VHF-Low, UHF and UHF-T. (The earlier 4-band model 5094 did not cover 800-900 MHz.)

Here's the link to the antenna which currently has a starting bid of $69.00 plus USPS Priority Mail shipping charges based on your zip code: https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-Channe...ive-Band-Monitor-Scanner-Antenna/162964668460
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2003
Messages
2,802
Location
ILL
#11
I still have two up on my tower 15 years old and one that has the top element broke off just using the bottom element and works great....lol
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
525
#12
Best scanner antenna ever made.
Well built to handle the elements, inexpensive and quite effective.
.............
Had one on the tower fed with 50ft of RG6 and a $10 dollar TV bullet amplifier (5-1000Mhz)
.............
I had a Radio Shack PRO2004 back then and i could listen to police and fire systems more than a hundred miles away with ease.
 

dlwtrunked

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
512
#14
Mine always worked great at 800Mhz. The antenna is ruined at the higher frequencies by poor coax. You have to use good coax or the attenuation at UHF is high with any antenna. RG6 is lossy , especially that quad shield wal-mart garbage. Use a better cable like 9913 or LMR400. Even with those you see around 4db loss per 100ft. You want to really lose signal run RG58. It has like 20db loss.
Good RG-6 (6 DB) is only 2 dB more lossy at 900 MHz than LRM-400 (3.9 dB). To call good RG-6 lossy is a gross exaggeration. But, yes, avoid RG-58, that is lossy at 900 MHz. That is too small a difference for most to see or make any real difference. And the antenna and its height have more effect that that.
Coax Attenuation Chart
(Please, lets not start the impedance nonsense. For receiving, the loss by miss matching the impedance is only something like 5% and that assumes the antenna and receiver are 650 which they often are not throughout their range.)
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,026
#15
I came across a newspaper ad from 1979 advertising the original four-band Channel Master 5094 Monitenna for only $24.99. Keep in mind that the original 5094 did not cover 800-900 MHz. The model 5094A replaced the 5094 sometime in the late 1980s and added the 800-900 MHz coverage. Unfortunately the 5094A was discontinued by Channel Master circa 2000.

Anyway the attached newspaper ad is from the Cumberland Evening Times located in Cumberland, Maryland and is dated March 19th, 1979.
 

Attachments

Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
142
#17
I bought some Montenna 5094A's over 20 years back from famous Greenville, SC scannist Larry Williams, now passed. He told me the stock Channel Master coax was very good quality, and I will agree. I am still using that cable on a replacement Scantenna, now tree-torn, and still get some 800 mhz traffic. The cable says it is a CM speciality # 9539 (I think) and it is "6-U", 100% shielded, Supercolorduct.
The CM scanner antennas were very good, I had very long range mil-air catches routinely on them.

This may not be very helpful in the market, nowadays. I am sure a lot of us would like a new and affordable antenna with similar characteristics. Surely this CM coax could be bettered, perhaps, but it seemed to transfer a lot of signal.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,026
#18
...He told me the stock Channel Master coax was very good quality, and I will agree. I am still using that cable on a replacement Scantenna, now tree-torn, and still get some 800 mhz traffic. The cable says it is a CM speciality # 9539 (I think) and it is "6-U", 100% shielded, Supercolorduct...

...Surely this CM coax could be bettered, perhaps, but it seemed to transfer a lot of signal.
That coax that you are referring to in your post is Channel Master RG-6U. The original 5094 antennas included RG-59U coax (see the 1979 ad in my post #14 above) as did the earlier production 5094A antennas. I have a 1990 Channel Master catalog and it says that the 5094A included RG-59U coax at that time so the change to RG-6U must have occurred sometime between 1990 and 2000 when the antenna was discontinued. For scanner and TV reception RG-6U is definitely a better/lower-loss coax compared to RG-59U (both 75 ohm).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top