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.
Peano,

Your results seem to contradict Jase88's results... His results show that SNR has higher for *most channels* on MXU59 than 91XG (except for high UHF, say > RF 50)...

I was getting ready to order 91XG, but now I'm considering MXU59 since my channels are UHF 17 - UHF 43, because MXU59 is better for lower channels...

And I assume MXU59 is about same / equivalent as CM 3023/4248 in terms of performance?

Could be location. But Jase88 went back to the 91XG so the MXU can't be that good. It wasn't when I tested it.

And the 3023 was a waste of time for me. Disappointing.

Arg... I keep hearing these conflicting reports... for example Billiam says that his CM 3023 is better at low UHF vs 91XG... and previous reports say the same for MXU59.

My channels of interest are from 17 to 43, but can stop at 32 (I dont really need high gain on 43)... and 91XG is best for high UHF like > RF 50, which is useless today.

So, in the low range, starting at channel 17, isnt its gain about 12dBi or 10dBd?

And I keeping goiing back and forth between which one to order.. 91XG or MXU59 now... comments?

My report is here again:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d60b58627ae5cd1

Also, just got KT-200 coax, and before I could not get a picture on RF 19, but now I do (also replaced new RG6 100 ft cable, not sure if that helped).. before it just was a signal blip on my signal meter.

Also, now I get a "sniff" signal on RF 22, 17, and sometimes RF 20, 26, and 32 and 43 (maybe Tropo condition?). Before the KT-200 (I had no preamp before), once in a blue moon, I would get that sniff for those channels, so I must be getting closer with my current RS VU-190.

4nec2 model for 91XG calculates 11.5 dBi Raw Gain on Ch14, nearly 17 dBi on Ch51
and Max of 17.8 dBi on OLD UHF Band Ch62-66:
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/yagis/91xg

Antennacraft spec sheet for MXU-59 doesn't say much, simply 10.7 dBd (12.9 dBi)
SOMEWHERE in the OLD UHF Band (Yagi peaks are typically near the highest channels).
Not even CLOSE to 91XG performance.
PS: I've never seen 4nec2 model results for the MXU-59....

PCT (aka Channel Master) policy is to no longer provide any antenna specs....
So we know NOTHING wrt frequency response for the NEW CM3023....nor have
I seen any 4nec2 models for the just released NEW version.
The OLD CM3023 (aka CM4248) is found here, providing only 11.0 dBi on Ch14:
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

===================================================
W-G HD-8800 (aka PR-8800) 8-Bay Bowtie provides more Gain on the lower channels:
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html

Also mclapp's 9.5x9 Super-4-Bay Bowtie (DIY or Kit form)...Hi-VHF is also Good:
http://photos.imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/compare//CM4228%20wandwo%20CombinerMod%20and%20Super4bays%20-%20Refl_BowSwp_PerDwgs%20-%20UHF%20Gain.jpg
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/4bayrefl
http://m4antenna.eastmasonvilleweather.com/index.html

And perhaps also either OLD CM4228 or NEW CM4228HD with RF Combiner Mod:
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/8bayrefl
http://photos.imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/8bayrefl/cm4228hd//CM4228%20vs%20CM4228HD%20vs%20M4%20wandwo%20CombinerMod%20an d%20Super4bay%20M4%20-%20UHF%20Gain.jpg
Above charts do NOT include Insertion and Phase Matching Losses (est 0.5 to 1.5+ dB)
in the RF Combiner (for back-to-back Splitter-Combiners, divide by 2):
http://www.antennahacks.com

I thought because MXU-59 is LPDA antenna type, that its published gain would be roughly *flat* across UHF 14-69?

Yeah, I saw PR-8800/HD-8800 in that comparison report and it looks very good for low-UHF. Then I posted that on a Tvfool thread (I can link if you) where another person claims still that 91XG beats it in his real-word test against PR-8800 for his low UHF channels.. that's why I keep getting conflicting reports about these various antennas. Billiam here swears that his CM 3023 beats 91XG in low UHF as well.

As for the Super-4 Bay Bowtie, is that like the Super G1483 sold on Summit Source? They claim 14-16 dB(i?) across UHF.

As for "kit" form , do you have a website for me to look at this mclapp's?

Since only a small number of elements form the LPDA, I wouldn't expect very much
Gain on the lower channels....the much smaller Directors will probably predominate.
But, without dimensions, we can't model the MXU-59 Log-Yagi to make sure....
There are VERY FEW antennas that don't lose significant Gain on lower channels....

A single OTA test is interesting, but isn't enough to show that one antenna is truly
better than another...conditions vary over time, as well as Location, Location, Location....
Numerous, different tests are needed to show that one antenna is better than another....

Super-4-Bay Bowtie is mclapp's M4, which comes in different sizes.
mclapp's M2/M4/M8 website was cited above:
http://m4antenna.eastmasonvilleweather.com/index.html

Antennacraft Super-G-1483 is a 2-Bay Hoverman....quite different...specs say
11.0 dBd (13.2 dBi) Gain SOMEWHERE in the NEW UHF Band (probably LESS on Ch14):
http://www.user.dccnet.com/jonleblanc/Canada_TV_Stations/SUPERG1483specsheet.pdf
300ohm posted 4nec2 results for the Super-G-1483 and two Stacked "Double" Super-G-1483's here:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=95834&page=8
[Actually Super-G-1483 is TWO G-1483 Hovermans and "Double" Super-G-1483 is a QUAD.]
Raw Gain on Ch14 was about 12.5 dBi and (like most antennas) increased 3 dB when stacked.
Note that 300ohm found Max Gain was 16.0 dBi versus "spec" value of 13.2 dBi (average????).

My RS antenna, its UHF portion boom with the small director elements, the boom length is about 3 feet I guess (36 inch), while the MXU-59 it has directors all long its 100 inch boom.. which is about 3 times longer than my RS UHF portion.

So, since it has more "metal (dipole elements)," than can't we guess it should provide at least twice (+3dB) gain more than my RS antenna?

PS. Thanks for the link on where to buy that DIY kit. :-)

Also, just noticed the picture of that "4-bay" kit and it looks quite close to the "coat hanger DIY antennas shown on YouTube, etc." and those were de-bunked to stay away from them!? hmm.. also it looks like my old CM4221 (old model) minus the reflector mesh in the back.. hmmm.. so this would get better gain that my CM4221 or current RS?

I thought because MXU-59 is LPDA antenna type, that its published gain would be roughly *flat* across UHF 14-69?
Nah, thats rare on a corner reflector. The idea is to build the corner reflector for the low uhf channels and the yagi/lpda for the high uhf channels. With many directors, the high uhf wins out overall.

Looking at the picture of the MXU-59, its corner reflector looks very small and could stand to be double the width it is now, assuming the picture is to scale. That would help the low uhf channels a lot.

PS. Thanks for the link on where to buy that DIY kit. :-)

Also, just noticed the picture of that "4-bay" kit and it looks quite close to the "coat hanger DIY antennas shown on YouTube, etc." and those were de-bunked to stay away from them!? hmm.. also it looks like my old CM4221 (old model) minus the reflector mesh in the back.. hmmm.. so this would get better gain that my CM4221 or current RS?
The "U-Tube Defect" 4-Bay was WAY TOO SMALL. And Old/New CM4221 are still a bit smallish....
mclapp's Super-4-Bay M4 antennas are BIGGER (hence the name), optimized for NEW UHF Band:
http://photos.imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/4bay/chartsnorefl//Super-4-Bays%20w%20NO%20Reflectors%20-%20UHF%20Raw_Net%20Gain%20and%20SWR.jpg
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/4bay
Note that these are all 4-Bay versions WITHOUT a Reflector to compare to babblin5's U-Tube video.

BTW: I just posted M4 (10x9.5) 4nec2 results (with slightly larger Bowties):
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/4bayrefl
Raw Gain on Ch14 is 13.8 dBi, rising to Max Gain of 15.7 dBi on Ch45, dropping to 15.0 dBi on Ch51.
So, just slightly higher Gain on Ch14 than M4 (9.5x9) version.

well, ok, maybe the dipoles are longer, but it still looks like this guy made his DIY 4-bay kit using coat hangers (though it doesnt matter if it's coat hangers or regular steel wire, I suppose)...

So, the only difference his is carefully measured dimensions and longer length?

If what you're saying is correct, then at low UHF, getting 14 dBi is pretty good!

well, ok, maybe the dipoles are longer, but it still looks like this guy made his DIY 4-bay kit using coat hangers (though it doesnt matter if it's coat hangers or regular steel wire, I suppose)...

So, the only difference his is carefully measured dimensions and longer length?

If what you're saying is correct, then at low UHF, getting 14 dBi is pretty good!
mclapp uses COPPER or Alumnium....we avoid rusty, low conductivity Steel....

M4 (10"x9.5") also has about 1 dB more Gain on Hi-VHF than M4 (9.5"x9.0), although
neither is very good wrt SWR....which may or may not be an issue....less so w Preamp.

Be236, there is an entire multi-page thread devoted to the M4 here. Mclapp took the lousy youtube design and through modeling and testing came up with the designs you see on his site. Did you look at all the information there? How could you say it was just careful measurements?

No offense, but you need to focus somewhere so we can help you in an organized way. Between here and TVFool you must be in 20 threads.

Be236, there is an entire multi-page thread devoted to the M4 here. Mclapp took the lousy youtube design and through modeling and testing came up with the designs you see on his site. Did you look at all the information there? How could you say it was just careful measurements?

No offense, but you need to focus somewhere so we can help you in an organized way. Between here and TVFool you must be in 20 threads.
Dave,

Yes, I know I'm posting and reading between here and Tvfool. It's because I keep hearing conflicting reports from various people claiming one antenna is better than the other (in low-UHF gain)... between CM 3023, MXU-59, and 91XG. And even the two comparison sites contradict each other (somewhat). One site says 91XG is better in gain, other the other says PR-8800/HD-8800 is better...

.. that's why I'm "everywhere."

Bottom line.. is I was about to order the 91XG, then saw good reviews on MXU-59, then now this DIY M4 kit, etc... then Super G-1483, etc.. arg...

Just looking to get the best low UHF gain, from RF 17 to 32, and maybe 43...

Since I'm everywhere, you've probably know my Tvfool report by heart now. ;-)

... I hope I dont have to follow the path of "just buy XYZ antenna, and if that don't work, but the next one, etc... just to see that it works."

mclapp uses COPPER or Alumnium....we avoid rusty, low conductivity Steel....

M4 (10"x9.5") also has about 1 dB more Gain on Hi-VHF than M4 (9.5"x9.0), although
neither is very good wrt SWR....which may or may not be an issue....less so w Preamp.
Ok, so let me ask some dumb question...

"mclapp," is your handle name? And you're the person with the website and selling this kit?

If so, that's cool.. I didnt realize that... and you came up with this M4 design, through modeling, etc? ok, that's cool too...

Yes, I need to read up more about this M4 design. Looks like my CM 4221 w/o its reflector... so I would guess it has slightly less gain than standard 4221, right?

Do you (or that website) have plans for DIY kits similar to Super G1483? Or is that too big of a kit that's not worth the hassle and cheaper to buy from Summit Source?

Super G1483? Or is that too big of a kit that's not worth the hassle and cheaper to buy from Summit Source?
I would say Summit Source if you dont want to build a GH yourself. You could always add NARODs to it for vhf very easily. Or if you just want higher uhf only gain from it, add a mesh reflector to it. (NARODs wont work with a mesh reflector though)

Could be location. But Jase88 went back to the 91XG so the MXU can't be that good. It wasn't when I tested it.

I went back to the 91XG as I wasn't able to receive Global (RF 65) with the MXU. Obviously now post-transition the MXU would be a decent antenna for my purposes.

Peano, Your results seem to contradict Jase88's results... His results show that SNR has higher for *most channels* on MXU59 than 91XG (except for high UHF, say > RF 50)

My overall assessment of this MXU is consistent with Peano's. Don't get too caught up in the numbers, as the SNR fluctuates constantly. The two antenna--91XG and MXU--are virtually identical in performance below channel 51.

be326,

Consider an 8-bay Winegard bowtie. It scores well in the lower part of UHF. In the Ottawa area where there are a number of challenging stations in that range, the Winegard 8-bay is go-to antenna. There are some antenna comparisons out there that would indicate that this is an antenna worth looking into.

Winegard Model HD-8800
http://www.winegard.com/kbase/upload/HD-8800.pdf

I would say Summit Source if you dont want to build a GH yourself. You could always add NARODs to it for vhf very easily. Or if you just want higher uhf only gain from it, add a mesh reflector to it. (NARODs wont work with a mesh reflector though)
Summit Source is selling that Super G1483 for $110.. ouch. The picture seems to show just two 4-bays attached... didnt look like two 8-bays.. hmm... maybe the picture is wrong... but dimensions is huge.. like 5 feet high by 3-feet wide? Geez... the size of a small wall. heheh... wonder how heavy it is to mount on a mast...

But its 16 dB(i?) gain seems the best... better than 91XG or MXU-59.

I don't care/need VHF... Just want best low UHF gain... so always have a mesh reflector for UHF gain, huh? ok... gotta remember that...

My overall assessment of this MXU is consistent with Peano's. Don't get too caught up in the numbers, as the SNR fluctuates constantly. The two antenna--91XG and MXU--are virtually identical in performance below channel 51.
Ah ha! Ok, if that's true.. then MXU-59 is equivalent to CM3023 (that Billiam user here swears by for low UHF), then sounds like I should get this MXU instead since it's about $20 cheaper.

Seems like the *only* reason someone would/should get 91XG is for high UHF, say RF channels 40 and higher to 51.