Hey, that's my review. :-)

Yes, my tests here with the MXU59 shows it to be a top notch UHF antenna especially in a multi path prone environment. I just got my hands on a new CM 3023 which is apparently a CM 4248 with a new name. I will do a head to head test with that one next.

Initially I planned to try a Winegard PR 9032 but after reading several disappointing reviews I decided against installing it. I purchased it twice last fall and in both cases I had to throw it out because it was part of a lot that had been constructed incorrectly. At least Solid Signal refunded my money.

After reviewing those notes, this is contrary to the conventional wisdom that a 43XG is just a 91XG with one boom subtracted.
Interesting. Too bad you still dont have the 43XG to note if director size and spacing change, as opposed to the same corresponding directors on the 91XG.

I don't know the origin of the "91" or "43", but creative counting explains it as well as any other reason. I've never heard of the origin of the models' names. The model name has been the same since the antenna was first sold years back when the company first started selling online.

The same directors are used on both the 43XG and the 91XG. The rest of the construction is unique to each model and, other than common hardware and the tilt-mount, there are no interchangeable parts.

Based on our engineer's modeling, the 91XG should exhibit between 2 and 3.5 dB greater gain with a beam-width narrowed by around 10° as compared to the 43XG.

CORRECTION:The same directors are used on both the 43XG and the 91XG. The rest of the construction is unique to each model and, other than common hardware and the tilt-mount, there are no interchangeable parts.The balun/folded dipole is common to all our UHF Yagi antennas.

Yes, my tests here with the MXU59 shows it to be a top notch UHF antenna especially in a multi path prone environment. I just got my hands on a new CM 3023 which is apparently a CM 4248 with a new name. I will do a head to head test with that one next.

I'll be interested to see that, Billiam... I have a 4248 that works as well as anything else I've tried at this location, including the old steel 4228, the Winegard 9032 and 8800, and the Wade 1446 I've posted about. Its corner reflector is huge, though, compared to other yagis. (The 9032's seems too narrow for the lower channels, but the 4248 almost seems like overkill.)

What's odd is that a few years ago, I was pretty disappointed with it. But maybe that's because it was at a slightly different location (only about 30 yards away and 10 feet higher, though) and I was DXing analog on a tv tuner instead of digital on the Zenith CECB I use now. Sometimes this stuff does seem as much art as science.

And FWIW, the 4248 is slightly different from the 3023 in that the 4248 has the odd, large, diamond-shaped directors. But I've read that CM determined the diamond shape wasn't really an improvement over the simpler, traditional director.

Too bad you still dont have the 43XG to note if director size and spacing change, as opposed to the same corresponding directors on the 91XG.

I did note the director sizes, measuring 12.5" tip-to-tip (at the longest point). So, indeed, the directors themselves are identical on the 91XG and 43XG, just as ADTech noted in message #83.

The spacing is evidently different but I failed to record that. I wish I would have done so since I had both the 91XG and 43XG on hand (I compared them side-by-side) for a few days before returning the latter for credit.

Also, my notes show that the driven element was the same for both antennas measuring 16" from tip to tip. I did log the difference in sizes of the corner reflectors:

43XG: 10"H x 19"W
91XG: 14"H x 19"W

I think the latter puts to rest the idea that the 43XG is just a 91XG with one boom elided. When I omit the frontmost boom from the 91XG, there are 6 fewer directors. Therefore using the creative counting of each director as 4, the result would then be, viola(!), a 67XG! :)

My TV Fool report (http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8d1748807e5dfa).

I've installed the MXU59 on my tower, in replacement of the XG-91. For comparative purposes, here are the SNR (signal to noise ratio) between the two antenna (as reported on my Sony Bravia):

VIRTUAL CH; RF CH; XG-91 SNR dB; MXU59 SNR dB

TORONTO
5.1; 20; 29.54; 30.64
9.1; 40; 26.27; 26.37
11.1; 18; 31.56; 31.15*
17.1; 43; 17.20; 22.17*
23.1; 32; 24.04; 22.54*
25.1; 24; 21.31; 21.70
26.1; 26; 13.00; --.--; (not watchable on either antenna)*
36.1; 35; 28.86; 28.43*
41.1; 65; 26.60; 16.24
44.1; 44; 20.42; 22.16
64.1; 64; 19.82; --.-- (watchable on XG-91, not receivable on MXU59)
66.1; 66; 20.75; --.-- (watchable on XG-91, not receivable on MXU59)

*Off axis channels from Hamilton and Buffalo; antenna not aimed this way

BUFFALO/HAMILTON
2.1; 33; 14.00; 21.09 (conditions change constantly)
4.1; 39; 15.95; 20.00 (conditions change constantly)
7.1; 38; --.--; --.-- (tropo/summer mostly)
11.1; 18; 32.29; 32.52
17.1; 43; 27.80; 30.11
23.1; 32; 29.11; 30.04
26.1; 26; 18.29; 18.52
36.1; 35; 33.00; 34.02

The MXU59 feeds into a Magnovox balun, then into a CM7777 pre-amp (using RG-6). I was going to use an Eagle outdoor balun, but the leads aren't long enough to reach both of the feed bolts. There was a moment of panic when--at the top of the tower--I realized that the U-bolt for the MXU59 was too small for the mast. Luckily I managed to slightly bend the ends of the bolt to make a perfect fit.

The MXU59 is mounted about 6" lower than the XG-91 was. This is due to the XG-91 having a "cradle mount" to the boom. Whereas the MXU59 connects directly to the mast via a U-bolt and hardware.

Conclusions
Note that my observations are not scientific, but merely based on real-world usage.

The two antennae are virtually identical in performance, both in gain and beam-width. Where a significant difference is noted is in the 700MHz channels. Channel 41.1 (65) in particular has at least a 10dB gain in SNR with the XG-91!

Obviously for those in the US (or Canada after August 31, 2011), this lower performance on 700MHz channels for the MXU59 is moot. Unfortunately, until the end of the summer, I'd be stuck without 66.1 (66), 64.1 (64) and poorer performance on 41.1 (65) if I kept using the MXU59.

My observations will continue....

Choclab. Thanks for the info on the CM 3023. I just arrived home from work and found it sitting at the side of my house. It will be going in this weekend. This antenna should be stronger on Ch. 17 than any of the others that I presently own with the exception of the CM 4251 dish. I don't want to put that up unless I decide to settle down here. Will know in a year.

Jase 88 just did a good comparison study between the MXU 59 and 91XG. His findings, like my own are the very same. I compared these two antennas against each other in the same location and they performed virtually identical in all respects. Anyone that tells you the MXU59 is an inferior antenna is clueless.

I'll post the performance of the new CM 3023 as soon as I have a chance.

Thanks Jase88. It looks like the MXU59 performs better on one of my problem channels - real 33.

Where a significant difference is noted is in the 700MHz channels. Channel 41.1 (65) in particular has at least a 10dB gain in SNR with the XG-91!
Yeah, that agrees with my modeling. The fancy X shaped directors help the high channels. Moot point now though.

choclab. The CM 3023 is definitely better on channels below 26 here. Every channel I have here between 15 to 25 is now pegged whereas before the maximum signal strength was around 30 db SNR on average on the TV's meter. Now I am seeing 31 db to nearly 34 db! Channels above 26 come in as well as they did on the MXU59 and 91XG. So, near as I can tell, the CM 3023 is best on the lower channels and equal to the other two on the mid to upper UHF channels.

The downside of the CM 3023 looks to be its one point mounting. They could have made it to be a three point mount with extending the corner reflector booms (no need for more reflector elements, just empty boom bar) so that the corner reflector boom bars could ubolt to the mast.
Alternatively, they could have added a brace for a two point mounting.

Time to try a CM3023 now too. :D

I have an MXU59 that I managed to partially drive over in the dark during our 10 hour power failure yesterday.

It is free to any forum member that wants to pick it up (east of Guelph). I am pretty sure it can be bent back into shape.

Peano. You can obtain a CM 3023 through Summit Source of Fort Wayne, Indiana. They still have a few dozen in stock.

Thanks. Just ordered a couple through their ebay store (shipping is cheaper).

My problem channels are the lower ones and it sounds like the CM3023 beats the 91XG and MXU59 in that regard in your case and hopefully will do the same here.

Mods- maybe we should add CM3023 to the thread title?

Billiam, that's exactly what I've found, that the 4248 is better than other yagis on the lower channels, surely due to its large reflector. (And again, that fits Ken Nist's HDTV Primer sims as well.) One of the main channels I DX is RF 19, and the 4248 does a similar job to that of the Winegard 8800 on that channel. It may not be quite as good, but it's very close, and better on the channels in the 40s.

I'd think that maybe the biggest negative to the 4248/3023 is that the reflector is so big, it makes the thing kind of ugly, and maybe an issue with wives. But mine is at our office in an old industrial part of town so that doesn't really matter. :)

I did some preliminary tests with the 91XG versus the MXU59 versus the CM3023.

First impressions on my test tripod about 20 ft. up show the CM3023 barely better than the 91XG on the lower channels, but much worse on the higher channels. The MXU59 did not fare much better.

Tests were done about 20 minutes apart. And yesterday was probably a tropo day. I will follow up with some more tests.

So, in your tests, does the MXU59 favour the lower channels? Where does the 91XG seem to pull away from it? I wonder, were you using a preamp or just straight coax to balun? I had heard many folks were quite pleased with the MXU59, but there's so many factors that can affect reception on an individual basis. It would be interesting to re-try with a preamp and compare. In theory, it should add a constant to the increase in performance, but it could also surprise. I was looking at an 91XG- would like to find a decent price on one in Canada- or an MXU59, with a possibility of even a 4221HD as a consolation prize. :) I look forward to hearing more of your results.

Hi,

I'm down south in Everett, WA, trying to reach your Vancouver channels about 60 km away and NM from -7dB to -15dB... I'm talking about RF channels 17, 20, 22, 26, 32, and 43, and 47, 49.

So which antenna is better for the lower UHF channels (32 and lower?) or (26 and lower?)...

Or is that asking too much since I'm so far away?

Summit Source. Was about $85 landed after UPS and brokerage.
Seems if you order it on Amazon (via 3rd party), it's about $20 cheaper now.

I find this thread interesting & was wondering if Peano has put up his MXU59 Antenna?? I did buy the MXU59 antenna to use at this location. http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d8d17974b055988
So, what were your results with this MXU59 for your problem channels with low of minus NM dBs?