Two antennas
- Thread starter dan2125
- Start date
- Status
N5TWB
Member
The discone will cover the same frequencies that the OE telescopic antenna will so I don't see the point of having two. The only reason to use two antennas would be to either get frequencies not covered by one or to use a directional antenna to cover a specific service/locality more reliably than an omni-directional antenna, like a discone, can.
2 antennas
I live just North of the KY/IND border in Vanderburgh Co, IN and I can get the SAFE-T Henderson, KY tower fine but I couldn't get reception from the Evansville POST tower which is in the Northern part of the county. I now use a YAGI (800 Mhz) pointed North along with a VHF/UHF Omni to get complete coverage. With this set-up I now get 3 towers on SAFE-T.
I live just North of the KY/IND border in Vanderburgh Co, IN and I can get the SAFE-T Henderson, KY tower fine but I couldn't get reception from the Evansville POST tower which is in the Northern part of the county. I now use a YAGI (800 Mhz) pointed North along with a VHF/UHF Omni to get complete coverage. With this set-up I now get 3 towers on SAFE-T.
n5ims
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,993
- Reaction score
- 303
Check the sticky on this topic. It will answer nearly all of your questions. http://forums.radioreference.com/an...57-running-one-scanner-multiple-antennas.html
The quick easy answer is no. Read the sticky.
benbenrf
Member
While the quick and easy answer is indeed a firm no - meaning: to just slap 2 antenna's together the chances are you will land up with poorer SNR, poorer signal level etc etc ...... than using just one of the antenna's alone - however, with carefull prep, planning and choice of hardware, adding an additional antenna (and this statement extends to omni-directional type antenna's as well), the potential to get a significant and very worthwhile improvement to received signal level, to signal to noise ratio (SNR), and to get improvements in a bunch of other criteria (often not considered, but no less important) against which receive antenna performance is measured, can be realised.
The emphasize however has to be on defining just what characteristic of your antenna setup/performance it is you are trying to improve on?
Is it Gain, is it SNR, is it radiation pattern or beam width or could it be beam angle adjustment? If so, is it E or H, or both planes you want to change? Is it front/back ratio you are seeking to improve on, or is it phasing ...... etc etc.
The term "better results" is a very broad term, and could mean many things
So when you say "better results....." - although I understand in broad terms what you mean, identifying and implementing a practical solution is often not at all starighforward. The question then becomes: will it worth the effort (i.e. time/expense) involved to realise the "better results" hoped for?
In many instances, after having firstly identified just what it is one hopes to realise, it is often discovered that implementing the required solution is just not worth it when viewed against time/effort/expense and the real-world benefit that stands to be realised.
If you could describe in a little more detail what it is, or where you would like to realise an improvement in signal reception, I'd be happy to share some ideas with you in particular how that improvement could be realised by way of adding an additional antenna, or alternatively, if adding an additional antenna is not the way to go (in my opinion), offer some or other suggestion/s that do not involve an additional antenna.
The emphasize however has to be on defining just what characteristic of your antenna setup/performance it is you are trying to improve on?
Is it Gain, is it SNR, is it radiation pattern or beam width or could it be beam angle adjustment? If so, is it E or H, or both planes you want to change? Is it front/back ratio you are seeking to improve on, or is it phasing ...... etc etc.
The term "better results" is a very broad term, and could mean many things
So when you say "better results....." - although I understand in broad terms what you mean, identifying and implementing a practical solution is often not at all starighforward. The question then becomes: will it worth the effort (i.e. time/expense) involved to realise the "better results" hoped for?
In many instances, after having firstly identified just what it is one hopes to realise, it is often discovered that implementing the required solution is just not worth it when viewed against time/effort/expense and the real-world benefit that stands to be realised.
If you could describe in a little more detail what it is, or where you would like to realise an improvement in signal reception, I'd be happy to share some ideas with you in particular how that improvement could be realised by way of adding an additional antenna, or alternatively, if adding an additional antenna is not the way to go (in my opinion), offer some or other suggestion/s that do not involve an additional antenna.
Last edited:
- Status
