car radio antenna splitter for scanner

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ky396t

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
17
Location
Radcliff Ky
I have a 2012 Mitsubishi Gilant with a intergrated antenna in the rear window, should i use a splitter to hookup my 396t to it or should i use a seperate external antenna
 

jackj

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,548
Location
NW Ohio
You'll get a lot better results using an external antenna designed for scanners. Those antennas in the rear window don't work well for AM and they are directional on FM.
 

popnokick

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
2,175
Location
Northeast PA
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

The AM-FM to scanner splitters are a compromise. Get and install a separate scanner antenna.
I've had several of the splitters and while they're better than any inside-the-car antenna, they are a compromise not only for the scanner but they also compromise your AM-FM radio reception. Even a through-the-glass scanner antenna is better than the splitter. Neither is as good as a separate external scanner antenna.
 

Russell

Texas DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
1,617
Location
Dallas (and Austin) Texas
Larsen 150/450/800 and magnet mount performs exceptionally well. There are other mounts available (hole, trunk lip, etc.). I have three of these for different cars. I you don't need low band (<100mhz) then this is what you need. It's only 17" tall and black. Highly recommended.

Also, available from TessCo. The mag mount is cheaper here.
 
Last edited:

jackj

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,548
Location
NW Ohio
Go with Russell's recommendation, Larsen antennas are good antennas and a mag mount will keep you from drilling holes in the car.
 

Rt169Radio

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
2,829
Location
CT
I second getting a Larsen tri-band antenna,I have one and its built sturdy and it receives the freqs I listen to quite good.
 

trap5858

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
811
Location
Doylestown PA
If you need a third vote on the Larsen, I am with the other two. The Larsen covers a lot of ground and is very low profile and quite durable.
 

WAScanMan

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
160
Location
Thurston County, WA
I tried one of these splitters you're talking about and it was garbage. That's not to say it won't work for you but spending the $30 +tax on my mag mount was a much smarter decision.
 

gsquared18

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
71
Location
Knoxville, TN
I'm interested in the Smoky Mountain National Park frequencies which range from 160-173Mhz. Would this antenna work?
 

Rt169Radio

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
2,829
Location
CT
I'm interested in the Smoky Mountain National Park frequencies which range from 160-173Mhz. Would this antenna work?
The Larsen tri-band antenna would work alright at those freqs,but if your going to listen to them and nothing else,a dedicated antenna for those freqs would be better.

Like the Larsen NMO 150 style antennas with the freq range of 144-174 MHz

Larsen Amateur Mobile Antennas NMO 440B
 

gsquared18

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
71
Location
Knoxville, TN
While we're talking about mobile antennas, how do people use multiple antennas on their vehicle? Are they joined together via a splitter of sorts? I like the idea of the Larson 150 when I get up into the mountains and then maybe a general 25-1000Mhz for general city listening. If this topic has been discussed at nauseam, forgive me as I didn't bother to search the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top