Witch one?

[Cappyton]

Iv seem to ran into a problemo.. Im not sure witch one to get.. perhaps both?

SMA-503
http://radioworld.ca/product_info.php?cPath=73_191_195&products_id=944

Or
SMA-501
http://radioworld.ca/product_info.php?cPath=73_191_195&products_id=943g

I hate the stock 396 antenna.. In the apt i get nothing. Once im out the door bam, i get about.. 2 bars on the local motorola system. When i pass by chatham kent i get more for their edacs system.

Leaving the city to move to london.. So just wonder what would be better to monitor londons moto fire service, and fleetnet for middlesex/elgin and if possible, lambton CK and oxford?

 

[KJ4FWA]

Well, the shorter antenna depending on your car might be more aesthetically pleasing but I like the looks of the first one better, but if you want to give them both a try you might as well, you could either sell the one you diddnt like on Ebay or something

 

[Cappyton]

Im moving to the 7th floor of an apt building.. makes it the top floor, how much of a difference would that make?

I know the place im at now with my base antenna i get nothing. Use to get alot of stuff untill i moved.
Cant wait to move again Better reception. Wooo!

 

[KJ4FWA]

Well, the more clear the view atleast to me, you would get better reception. BUT I could be wrong here. if your using it for your base system and putting it outside, the seccond one would be your best bet, it's smaller and easier to hide if your Apt or condo has an association fee or uppity neighbors

 

[ka5lqj]

Uk?

Cappy,

You in the UK or Canada? Your "challange" is that no one makes a base-station antenna that uses
coax to fit the end SMA connector. If you rig up one with RM-400, you have to "convert" that coax
down to RG-174 and put an SMA connector on it to connect to your scanner. That equates to a lot
of loss in coax. The best you can hope for is a window on your 7th floor apartment that you can
set up as a "monitoring station" area.

Seems a shame that some antenna manufacturer hasn't hit on the idea of a base antenna using
say a "N" connector using a dual, copper shielded coax, then a "adapter" to a short piece of
RG-174 to an SMA to hook to your scanner. If the run of RG-174 could be keep short (less than 12")
that should cut down on any signal loss.

Here, I hook up the scanner antennas with quad-sheilded RG-6 to a UHF (PL-259) to match the
antenna input, thru a plexiglass shield at the window (double barrel female F connector, then the
antenna amp then a F to BNC connector. The 72 ohm coax doesn't lose much signal at the scanner
antenna input (1.5:1 vswr) instead of a 50 ohm feed. ;-)

The quad-shield coax also gives better noise reduction and keeps some stray signals (pager tones)
from getting in.

Now, for all my ham stuff, I use RG-8U from HF to UHF. When you're only working with 20 watts
input of RF to a 444.5 antenna, every .001th of a watt counts, LOL!

Gud Luck,
73,

Don/KA5LQJ

 

[Bill_White]

Stay away from the SMA-501… Unless you need something stealthy for VERY CLOSE communications.
I have the CH-32, BNC version, and the ONLY thing it gets used for is at the air show connected to my VR-500.

The Maldol MH-209SMA, made by Comet, blows the CH-32 out of the water and performs as well as the stock BR-330 antenna. I’m sure a longer antenna such as the SMA-503 will perform even better yet.

 

[LordJ]

I just bought one of these http://cgi.ebay.ca/144-440MHz-Anten...oryZ4672QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
not too long ago. Shipping was fast. It looks very close to the one you are looking at from Radioworld...I am pleased with the performance on Fleetnet...

 

[prcguy]

The only place quad shield will benefit anything is in a closed system like your local cable TV distribution, a satellite dish LNB to receiver or when its bundled together and carrying L-band signals (950-1450MHz) and higher. In this case the extra shielding will cut down on some leakage between cables, which increases with frequency. Otherwise your antenna will pick up way more paging and noise than what will ever leak through single shielded RG-6. The loss is also exactly the same for the same brand of single and quad shield RG-6.
prcguy

Cappy,



Here, I hook up the scanner antennas with quad-sheilded RG-6 to a UHF (PL-259) to match the
antenna input, thru a plexiglass shield at the window (double barrel female F connector, then the
antenna amp then a F to BNC connector. The 72 ohm coax doesn't lose much signal at the scanner
antenna input (1.5:1 vswr) instead of a 50 ohm feed. ;-)

The quad-shield coax also gives better noise reduction and keeps some stray signals (pager tones)
from getting in.

Now, for all my ham stuff, I use RG-8U from HF to UHF. When you're only working with 20 watts
input of RF to a 444.5 antenna, every .001th of a watt counts, LOL!

Gud Luck,
73,

Don/KA5LQJ

 

[Cappyton]

Hmm... Sooo then if any. I should go with the first one?
My desk is rite at a big window... And its the ontario london not the UK (I wish it was the UK)

I just may go with the ebay one.. Seems to be cheeper and be the same?

 

[blueangel-eric]

I just bought one of these http://cgi.ebay.ca/144-440MHz-Anten...oryZ4672QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
not too long ago. Shipping was fast. It looks very close to the one you are looking at from Radioworld...I am pleased with the performance on Fleetnet...

it looks like a Diamond RH77CA!!! i like the shorter one it's cute, and looks like a mini RH77CA. DOn't have those. I never heard of this brand before.

 

[btritch]

Before you go spending all that moola on equipment, I think you shuold know, Almost all of london has now gone to the TETRA wave, Which is not monitorable by any man made scanner today..check out the uk forum on this page or this link for more info: http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?ctid=4452 . I'm not trying to steer you away from getting another antenna, I'm just letting you know what you may be prepared for.. Some things are still monitorable but all of the fire/ems/police/etc. comms are going to TETRA which as stated is unmonitorable by any brand/type of scanner alive today.. Just so you know ahead of time..

 

[n2mdk]

Before you go spending all that moola on equipment, I think you shuold know, Almost all of london has now gone to the TETRA wave, Which is not monitorable by any man made scanner today..check out the uk forum on this page or this link for more info: http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?ctid=4452 . I'm not trying to steer you away from getting another antenna, I'm just letting you know what you may be prepared for.. Some things are still monitorable but all of the fire/ems/police/etc. comms are going to TETRA which as stated is unmonitorable by any brand/type of scanner alive today.. Just so you know ahead of time..

Wrong London he's up in Canada.

 

[btritch]

Wrong London he's up in Canada.

Ok, My bad, Sorry, I had a house full of ppl when I read it, I read it wrong.. Sorry bout that folks!

 

[PHOENIX_SCANNER]

What's this about witches? This sounded interesting...

 

[VA3QRM]

Comet SMA 3

Iv seem to ran into a problemo.. Im not sure witch one to get.. perhaps both?

SMA-503
http://radioworld.ca/product_info.php?cPath=73_191_195&products_id=944

Or
SMA-501
http://radioworld.ca/product_info.php?cPath=73_191_195&products_id=943g

I hate the stock 396 antenna.. In the apt i get nothing. Once im out the door bam, i get about.. 2 bars on the local motorola system. When i pass by chatham kent i get more for their edacs system.

Leaving the city to move to london.. So just wonder what would be better to monitor londons moto fire service, and fleetnet for middlesex/elgin and if possible, lambton CK and oxford?

I suggest this one for all around scanning......... http://radioworld.ca/product_info.php?cPath=195&products_id=942
works well on Fleetnet, 400, and 800 mhz stuff. portable, mobile or @ home for me. Maybe you can find a better deal somewhere other than Radioworld? E-bay? Lambton ....... C/K.......I guess things will depend on which side of the apartment building you will be on. Become pals with the building superintendent and put something up on the roof. ( No, I'm not kidding... )