General coverage: VHF vs UHF

Status
Not open for further replies.

chrismol1

Newbie
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
44
Location
Saratoga
I see a lot of radios for cheap that could be useful for me but there UHF. I want VHF for outdoors as I hear that its better.
So is there a HUGE difference between the signals absorption into the woodlands?
 

mciupa

DB Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
6,887
Are we speaking of transmitting or receiving ? :confused:
 

Paulsan

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
223
Location
York PA
I believe mciupa is asking what you want to do. Are you listening or do you want to transmit and receive?
 

chrismol1

Newbie
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
44
Location
Saratoga
Paulsan said:
I believe mciupa is asking what you want to do. Are you listening or do you want to transmit and receive?
both, mostly via HT in a suburban/rural area. I wanted to find an old VHF mobile but there hard to find unlike UHF mobiles. But that means that my portables would have to be UHF. but I want to know which would be better. I hear that UHF absorbes a lot more .
 

kb2vxa

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
6,126
Location
Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Generally speaking VHF would better suit your purpose but first you need a license to transmit. All things including license considered your best bet would be MURS but that's UHF, there's always a compromise.
 

chrismol1

Newbie
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
44
Location
Saratoga
Highlander_821 said:
MURS is also license free, or rather, license by rule.
true.
What i'm asking is. Is it really worth it to go with UHF OR should I keep on to VHF?
WILL UHF KILL my coverage verses VHF?
As UHF has 3 cycles and asbosrbes more foliage than VHF
sometimes I wish there was a 10 watt HT somewhere, problem solved
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top