<<< Having said that, so far I've been gratified at how relatively well the whip performed, as I primarily wanted something that could be reasonably compared to an antenna exactly the same at another site, and was easy to carry and deploy, and this seems to fill the bill. Kept me out of the rain too. >>> Actually, Nick, a strong case could be made that all three of these antennas have a definite niche in ocean cliff transoceanic DXing. The large (for the cliff) broadband loops used by Tom and Chuck are superior performers for relatively sensitive investigation of the entire MW band, but do require some extended setup time (in comparison to your active whip and the FSL's), and have some weather vulnerabilities (in comparison to your active whip). Your active whip provides generally good performance in covering the entire band, and excels in quick setup and weather survivability (as we all found out on the "day of the drowned rats"). The FSL's do require manual tuning (with the related weather hassles), but they provide unexcelled low band performance, extremely quick setup and have a huge advantage in performance for the compact size (they can be set up in one square yard of flat space). Of course, all of these antennas get a DU-DXing performance boost when they are deployed at an ocean cliff site, with its solid-rock attenuation of back-side domestic signals and transoceanic signal boost. Related to this, I hope that you will post the results of your July 11th comparison of the ocean cliff propagation with that of the sea-level campsite nearby (in which the Rockwork 4 DU-DXing results kicked those of the sea-level site "off of the cliff"). 73, Gary DeBock (in Puyallup, WA, USA) ----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Hall-Patch" <[email protected]> To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 11:34:00 PM Subject: [IRCA] more same stations, different receiving setups I was having some discussions with Theo Donnelly concerning the recent posting of comparative audio files from the Rockworks DXpedition. The files posted by Gary tended to be recordings of higher signal levels than much of the DX more routinely heard. Comparing receptions of stronger signals may not be the best way to compare antennas and systems, as once a signal is a certain level, it will tend to sound good on any receiver / antenna combination, unless one antenna is particularly inefficient Comparing weaker signals will more likely separate the men from the boys. Gary obligingly supplied what he regarded as a weaker signal from Star-576: http://www3.telus.net/public/shallpat/rockworks/576-Star-1244z071116CCSW.MP3 and I went through my NetSDR files from that morning to see what I was hearing at that time and date: http://www3.telus.net/public/shallpat/rockworks/576_20160711_1244.wav Now, that's a difference. The whip wasn't really up to the task. Tom also supplied his reception of 576 at that time: <https://app.box.com/s/vusyc3zcgqepx9lhoxj7hhtqmq51bnv5>https://app.box.com/s/vusyc3zcgqepx9lhoxj7hhtqmq51bnv5 , and there we can hear the advantage of his delta loop / FLG100 This is a bit more like I expected, that the large amplified loop would deliver superior results to the active whip (as would the FSLs). Having said that, so far I've been gratified at how relatively well the whip performed, as I primarily wanted something that could be reasonably compared to an antenna exactly the same at another site, and was easy to carry and deploy, and this seems to fill the bill. Kept me out of the rain too. (I said earlier the whip was 3'; actually it is 4'; it was already packed away when the question was asked. Details on the whip are at: http://www.amrad.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/actant.pdf.pdf Although the designers praise the antenna's ability to ignore local noise conveyed down the coax shield, I found that I needed to have serious common mode chokes based on #75 material at either end of the coax to minimize noise from the DXer's computers etc.) Gary's closing comment: "Tom and Chuck's Perseus-SDR + broadband loop combinations can sometimes come up with weak DU's on the X-Band that the FSL + Ultralight combos have no trace of. The mid-band comparisons can go either way. In comparison to broadband loops, the larger FSL's seem to have their best performance on the lower frequencies of the MW band " best wishes, Nick _______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Be sure to register now for the Joint DX Convention Kansas City, September 9 to 11. Hotel space is filling up. Registration info: http://www.nrcdxas.org Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: [email protected] _______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Be sure to register now for the Joint DX Convention Kansas City, September 9 to 11. Hotel space is filling up. Registration info: http://www.nrcdxas.org Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: [email protected]
