Larsen Tri-band (800) vs 150/450 dual-band

Status
Not open for further replies.

redhatnick

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
38
Location
Charlotte, NC
I live in North Carolina which has an 800mhz statewide trunked radio system (VIPER), but frequently tip-toe across into Virginia which uses a 150mhz statewide trunked radio system (STARS). While the Larsen tri-band seems to pickup the 800mhz networks well, I'm considering making an investment in a dedicated 150/450 antenna. If I'm understanding antenna theory correctly, lower bands require taller antennas and higher bands can use shorter antennas.

The Larsen Tri-band (150/450/800) height (16.5') seems to indicate a sweet spot in the 800mhz range, but reduced performance further down in the 150mhz band which makes it a poor performer in some of the more remote areas in VA where the sites are further apart.

I'm considering ordering a Laird Tech CB150/450CS - $69.95 : The Antenna Farm :: , Your Two Way Radio Source! Laird CB150/450CS (height 36') to remedy the Larsen's performance in the low band but I have a few questions.

1) Even though the Laird CB150/450CS is twice as tall than the Larsen Tri-band, how well would the CB150/450 would perform back in the 800mhz band? It would be quite oversize for a 800mhz antenna, but does this reduce performance? Would this be better, worst, or equal to an ordinary antenna in the 800mhz-only band?

2) Is my perception of performance on the Larsen on 150mhz just in my head? If not, how have others remedied the low-band performance or have they just accepted it?

3) When waiting for friends and family at the airport, I also would like to tune into air traffic control (118-136mhz). While not in either's recommended band, would the CB150/450CS improve reception compared to the Larsen Tri-band, or would it be no improvement here?
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
25,894
Location
United States
An antenna specifically designed and tuned for a specific frequency will just about always outperform a random length antenna.

16.5" is not a sweet spot for 800, it's closer to a VHF sweet spot. The design of the antenna helps it perform well across several bands, but the antenna design doesn't provide a lot of gain.

What I'd suggest is to use the 150/450 antenna for your VHF and UHF scanning. Get a dedicated 800MHz antenna that has some gain and use that as your second antenna. This would likely give you the better performance.

The 150/450 antenna will work on VHF Low also, as the 5/8's design of the VHF portion of that antenna will be close to 1/4 wave on VHF Low.

Also, for scanning, don't get to hung up on the frequencies listed for the antennas. True, an antenna specifically tuned for a frequency will work better, however you have plenty of bandwidth to play with. The 150/450 antenna will work well on the VHF High band and the UHF band quite well. It'll also work just fine on the VHF Air Band.
 

n4yek

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
2,520
Location
Cosby, Tennessee
I live in Cosby Tn and am over 50+ miles away from the nearest Virginia STARS repeater. I can monitor it from my car with the Larsen Tri-band antenna easily. Don't sell it short, it does a great job.
 

Rt169Radio

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
2,984
Location
CT
If you want to listen to 800 MHz a lot get a dedicated antenna for that and keep the Larsen tri-band antenna for the 150/450 MHz stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top