As always I ask our members who contact technical staff from manufacturers, broadcasters, etc. to please invite them to join here. We are fortunate to have a great cadre of industry people here so they would be right at home. :)

Im suspect of the Antenna Craft gain data, it seems too conservative, which I generally like, but not to the point of making an antenna seem too crappy when it isnt, heh. Antenna Craft antennas do deliver good gain, better than most, for the buck.

AC's published "conservative gain figures" appears to be case. Of course, I base that only on the shootout I did a few weeks ago with their Y10-7-13 vs. the Winegard YA-1713.

If I ever run into some discretionary cash, I'd like to get a MXU59 and compare it to the 91XG. As is the case with Jase88, I have the 91XG and it's a very solid performer.

After getting a hot tip from a forum member about pricing on the MXU59, I checked Radio Shack's web page for details. I thought this review was interesting.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3739597

The MXU59 by Antennacraft is a very underrated antenna. This past week I did a comparison test between this antenna and the Antennacraft U8000 and Channel Master 4228 (pre HD model). Each was set up in the same location in the same manner at the same height. Much to my surprise the MXU59 easily outperformed the other two antennas in signal gain and multipath distortion. Out of the ten signals that I receive from Kansas City (all around 35 to 40 plus miles from my house) only Ch. 41 was a bit of a disappointment. While the signal strength is decent, the picture does tend to break up with the MXU59 while it is rock solid on the other two antennas.

But aside from that the MXU59 is the better antenna. The other two antennas had weaker signal strength readings on every channel and multipath issues on at least a couple of different channels. They were only superior to the MXU59 on Ch. 41. Next, I'll be doing a roof top mount to see how this unit works when it has some height and a clearer path to the signal.

Update on June 2, 2010.

Up on the roof it works better than I expected. When matched with the Winegard or Channel Master Pre Amp, I get a solid 70 to 90% signal strength reading for every Kansas City channel. And when it is pointed towards Sedlia, MO it locks onto the PBS station on Ch. 15 which is about 80 miles away! Neither of the other two antennas worked this well when they too were mounted in the same location on the roof and then paired with the Pre Amps.

Why even consider the MXU59 when it is not even on the antenna chart?

Seems like the Winegard HD 9032 would be a better comparison to the 91XG.

The chart is very helpful for many people but it's not etched in stone and there could be some room for change? Just a thought, no horse in this race... The chart was incorrect for my situation... The M-4 is ideal for my location with a single high vhf plus multiple uhf stations (70 degree spread between towers). The M-4 was recommended by both mclapp and 300ohm. Very spot on advice! :)

I found this chart- there's probably more charts on the Radio Shack site if one looks around, as in my case I discovered the exact model of my antenna: an Antennacraft (Radio Shack) RS VU-160XR.

http://support.radioshack.com/support_video/doc44/44032.htm

It gives all the information for comparing one really doesn't get on the models they now carry. "The Source" carries similar products but doesn't even give dimensions of most of the antennas like RS in the US.

Why even consider the MXU59 when it is not even on the antenna chart?



1.) Its made in the USA.
2.) I've seen actual pictures and it looks like a quality build.
3.) 300ohm modeled a 91XG with round directors and it had more gain. The MXU59 has round directors.
4.) Charts and simulations are helpful but often don't reflect actual results.
5.) I like fooling with antennas. :)

3.) 300ohm modeled a 91XG with round directors and it had more gain. The MXU59 has round directors.
That was with fat 1" directors, which seem to fit the form of the 91XG element better. The X directors it has on it seems to increase the bandwidth by helping channels above 60.

From what I can tell, the MXU59 uses a relatively large wide band LPDA for the driven element. But it doesnt look like the reflector on it is big enough to cover all the bounce back signal.

Hopefully peano and whoever else is comparing antennas, will show results at channel frequency, similar to HDTV Primer.

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

In looking at the comparison chart by HDTV Primer, the 91XG stands above others in net gain for anything above channel 35. Close behind at 35 and above is the Winegard PR-9032, and then the old CM 4221. I can somewhat attest to this in that my 4221HD (stacked as well) does a much better job in getting these higher channels (see WNYO RF-49) than my 4228HD.

From 14 to 35, the Winegard PR8800 has the highest net gain. The 91XG is not bad, but the CM 4248 also does better than the 91XG, specifically from channel 14 to 20.
Interestingly, the Antennacraft products are not shown; nor is the M4 or GH antennas.

Not sure how valid HDTV Primer is, but for those in the GTA, you might want to consider (whatever you have difficulty getting) the PR 8800 to get WUTV RF 14, ION RF 23, and then the 91XG for WNYO RF 49, as well as the south Buffalos (30 to 40 RF).

Since my curiosity was piqued about the AC MXU59, I called their Burlington, Iowa office to inquire more about it.

What I found out discouraged me somewhat (and it may be why this antenna doesn't seem to be in widespread use). It's one piece -- as also indicated on the carton dimensions.

The 100" boom does not separate. AC explained that the elements closest to the reflector do fold into place as well as those on the reflector itself. But it's shipped as one long, single piece of metal.

My intent was to try it in the attic but my roofline is such that even getting an unwieldy 100" piece of metal up through the trapdoor will be nigh impossible.

It makes me wonder if there would be a problem to hack saw the boom into two or three lengths and then reconnect those new joints with under/over non-metallic tubing and fasteners... No idea how this would look or how stable it might be. (?)

Another feature that's in the 91XG's corner is the easy custom tilting feature right out of the box. In many cases it has really helped people who have geographic or other nearby obstructions improve those very difficult signals.

MXU59 received. As noted, the boom is one piece and the box is l o n g. I will post pictures shortly. Some directors were bent but easy to bend back. They are not round but actually U shaped. I like the fact it doesn't have a PCB balun so I can experiment with different brands. The VHF antenna connection is nice too.

The reflector rods may be the weak link with this antenna, but adding mesh as 300ohm suggests will be easy.

More to come.

MXU59 received.

Do you have a 91XG that you'll be using as a basis of comparison?

By the way, per a suggestion in the thread, I opted for a Winegard HD-9032 UHF yagi to compare against my 91XG. The MXU59, being one long piece, was a non-starter for me since it simply couldn't have fit up the attic trapdoor with the low roofline I have at that access point.

The hacksaw surgery is a no-go for me since I'm all thumbs and the only things that would've been separated would have been a few fingers from my hand. :)

Do you have a 91XG that you'll be using as a basis of comparison?



I do indeed.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/album.php?albumid=211&pictureid=1022

Nice pic. Looks like the ones in Europe. The tilt feature could come in handy for fine tuning. How does it compare to other antennas you might have used in that location in the past?

Where I am, there are tall Western Hemlocks, Douglas Firs ~ 135' and Western Red Cedars ~ 100' in a park about 1/2 a block from me and my signal from Mt. Seymour comes right through them; so I'm wondering if a more directional antenna, like the 91XG, might be better than a something like a four or eight bay antenna. Mt. Seymour is only 10 miles away for me but KVOS is around 48 miles, CHEK 38 miles, and well, Seattle around 120 miles. What about the 43XG?

Thanks.

They are not round but actually U shaped. I like the fact it doesn't have a PCB balun so I can experiment with different brands

I have been testiing the 91XG for many months and it is an excellent antenna, it will be very interesting to see how the MXU59 stacks up. Regarding the 91XG's PCB balun, I removed it last week and replaced it with my best transformer balun. There was a very slight improvement on deepest fringe channels (31,38,39,48), but the biggest upgrade was on VHF-Lo 6 (CHEK TV analog) from 32 miles away.

The stock PCB balun has some serious filtering on VHF (Lo more than Hii), so its not surprising the transformer balun was better on VHF, but how much so, was a surprise. With the trasnformer balun, the 91XG was pulling in RF6 analog superbly, as good or better than any analog cable I have seen. For a UHF antenna such as the 91XG it was a nice bonus to get a VHF-Lo channel so clearly.

I did not see any benefit of the stock PCB balun for UHF, to offset its large attenuation of VHF channels.

The stock PCB balun has some serious filtering on VHF(Lo more than Hii),
Nice observation. Maybe AD does this on purpose to address FM concerns? I have found that strong FM can even have a detrimental affect on UHF reception. Especially with the Zenith digital to analog converters.

Peano, is that corner reflector on it mounted sideways to its factory position or am I seeing an optical illusion ?

I did not see any benefit of the stock PCB balun for UHF, to offset its large attenuation of VHF channels.
Personally, I havent found a PCB balun yet that performs as good as a normal ferrite coil type one. Of course, the PCB baluns Ive tested have been designed over 20 years ago, from oddball manufacturers.