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
HWP, Wingard 8-bay, eh? So you mean the new HD-8800 or the old PR-8800 model?

What about Antennacraft U8000? They look quite similar...

And I heard new CM 4228HD is a "disaster" compared to their old model... so I'll be avoiding that.

Its funny those two websites that do antenna comparisons (HDTV Primer vs Antenna Hacks), one shows the PR8800 (8-bay) have excellent gain in low UHF against 91XG, yet on the latter site, it says the 91XG is slighter better than DB8 (equiv to 8-bay antenna, I guess)...

That's why I'm just confused with so many contradictions...

As a side note, I got KT-200 pre-amp so if anyone wants me to do any tests, just ask...

be236 as stated the reason there is so much conflicting feedback on which antenna peforms best at a certain section of the UHF band, is every location will produce different results. Add to the fact that conditions can change very quickly and the sweet spot for one antennna is typically different than for other antennas. Just being out a few inches with either the install or aim can negate the theoretical gain advantages of one antenna vs the other(s).

I have done extensive testing of the stock 91XG, DB4 and HD-8800 plus M4 (modified DB4). I have also done various hacks to the 91XG and HD-8800 (including assembling the 8800 into a pair of HD-4400 vertically stacked with co-phase line), and find the modified 91XG, M4 and various modifed HD-8800 configurations all perform very close to each other, for deep fringe chanells 31,38,39,48. The stock HD-8800 did have a slight edge on RF25 versus the 91XG but nothing earth shattering. The M4 is weakest in the 14-25 range, as the bay size is only 8" whiskers with 8" spacings.

If I had to do it all over again I would build a 10" x 9.5" M4 and call it a day, with the option of stacking a 2nd M4 of the same size. A well built M8 optomized for the range of channels you have the most problem with, will be very hard to beat, putting out 18-19 dbi at the peak of its gain curve.

mclapps website has lot of information and I found him very helpful, if there is little benefit to a new M4 over your existing setup, he will say so, rather than make the sale.

Thanks for the info MoreDB. Yes, I understand each person is putting in their perspective with their location , etc for their antenna... (this TV receptions stuff is 1/2 art , 1/2 science.heh)...

I definitely need to re-read thru these posts again...

What's the difference between M8 (guess you have to make this yourself, which is too complicated for me to do) and DGH (sold as Super G-1483)?

Will Super G-1483 give me the best gain for all antennas for low UHF (say RF 17 to 32)?

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?
M2/M4/M8 website belongs to mclapp:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/member.php?u=52856
Here is his latest post in the 4-Bay Thread:
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=1338052
He also posts as mclappp in other OTA Forums...

The DIY Kits he sells contains the preassembled Bowtie Structure and all
mounting hardware but does NOT include the Reflector Screen:
http://m4antenna.eastmasonvilleweather.com/instructions/Complete%20kit%20tips%20and%20instructions.pdf
So it's not quite "off-the-shelf"....you have to buy a piece of "wire fence"
and a mounting pole from your local hardware store...thereby saving
the shipping costs for an oversize package.
BTW: Even store-bought 4-Bays require user to attach the Reflector Screen
and buy their own mounting pole....

He provides instructions for a Curved and a Double Angle Reflector Screen:
http://m4antenna.eastmasonvilleweather.com/reflector/Reflectors.html
Click on "Angled" for the Double Angle Folded Reflector.
Note that mclapp and I provide charts for BOTH with and without a Reflector.

I modeled M4 (10"x9.5") and M4 (9.5"x9") sizes with the Double Angle Reflector:
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/4bayrefl
And various 4-Bays WITHOUT any Reflectors (incl. the TOO Small U-Tube Defect):
http://imageevent.com/holl_ands/multibay/4bay

DIY Kits for TV antennas are very rare...I've never seen any for either
G-1485, Super-G-1485 or any of the Gray-Hoverman variations....

Raw Gain Summary (Max is within NEW UHF Band):

M8 (9.5"x9.0"): Ch14=16.2 dBi, Max=18.9 dBi, per mclapp 4nec2.

M4 (10"x9.5"): Ch14=13.8 dBi, Max=15.7 dBi, per holl_ands 4nec2.
M4 (9.5"x9.0"): Ch14=13.7 dBi, Max=15.5 dBi, per holl_ands 4nec2.
W-G HD-8800: Ch14=13.7 dBi, Max=15.5 dBi, per Ken Nist's HDTVPrimer.

Super-G-1483: Ch14=12.5 dBi, Max=16.0 dBi, per 300ohm 4nec2.
Old CM4221: Ch14=12.3 dBi, Max=14.5 dBi, per holl_ands 4nec2.

A-D 91XG: Ch14=11.5 dBi, Max=17.0 dBi, per holl_ands mod to Ken Nist's EZNEC.
CM4221HD: Ch14=11.2 dBi, Max=15.0 dBi, per holl_ands 4nec2.
CM4228HD: Ch14=10.5 dBi, Max=14.9 dBi, per holl_ands 4nec2.

M8 obviously has highest Gain on Ch14 and Max within NEW UHF Band,
but any of the other antennas could ALSO be stacked for a "nominal" +2.5 dB.

The two M4 models and W-G HD-8800 (aka PR-8800) were essentially the SAME.
Any of these would provide good performance on Ch14 and across the New UHF Band.

A-D 91XG, CM4221HD and CM4228HD had about 1 dB lower Gain on Ch14, which
would be difficult to observe in REAL OTA Tests......

And YES, the new CM4228HD (without mods) is WORSE than CM4221HD.
Even if the "Split" or "RF Combiner" mod were to be used with the CM4228HD,
I would expect the (not shown) insertion and phase matching loss in the combiner
would reduce the overall improvement to only 1 or 2 dB....no better than M4.

Antennacraft MXU-59 is not included above, since we don't have dimensions
to prepare a 4nec2 file and A-C simply says 10.7 dBd (12.9 dBi) SOMEWHERE
in the OLD UHF Band....and probably much less on Ch14 at the bottom end...
Which places it dead last.....

I really appreciate that comparison, excellent, thank you :)

It really shows the M4 is a VERY decent antenna, at least for across UHF, not bad for a DIY project. It seems like it comes down to a matter of where we need the gain. Obviously, though if we need good F/B, the 91XG is by far still the best.

Wow, thanks a bunch, holl_ands!

That is an excellent summary. I gotta copy-and-paste that to my notepad. :-)

So, for my needs of best low UHF gain, that M8 seems the best...

Is there a place to buy that M8 antenna, or is it strictly DIY?

(Ps, I tried to make the junk coat hanger antenna watching YouTube about a year back and failed miserably).

But since I'm desperate, I'll willing to give it another go... do you have a link on how to make this M8 or dimension/diagrams? I searched on your site it it just shows an M4? Is an M8 basically two M4s stacked on top of each other?

There a place on the Mclapp website to make a purchase. You can use the links provided before.

Holl_ands and mclapp are two different people.

Buy two M4 kits to make an M8. You can use chicken-wire fencing to make the reflector.

You can use chicken-wire fencing to make the reflector.
1" chicken-wire fencing which is basically the equivalent of 2" X 4" mesh, but with more wind resistance. :)

Ok, I guess "mclapp" is this person's online handle who makes that website and kit?

He sells a 4-bay kit (I guess that's what is called "M4" here?).

So, if I buy two 4-bay kits, how do I hook them up to be M8? Just vertical stacking?

I guess I'll have to read up on the spacing between the two 4-bays then need just combine the output of the baluns together?

I got like 1"x2" sturdy mesh here, looks liike chicken wire, but it's fairly sturdy/stiff, about 3 feet high I could cut up for the reflector.

Wow, can't believe something as simple (so few metal) could be more than a commercial antenna with so much material (metal in the air)... amazing.

Also, re:
W-G HD-8800 (aka PR-8800)

... have you modeled similar 8-bay antennas to compare with this 8800 model?

For example, the AD DB8 and Antennacraft U8000?

Also this:

M4 (9.5"x9.0"): Ch14=13.7 dBi, Max=15.5 dBi, per holl_ands 4nec2.
W-G HD-8800: Ch14=13.7 dBi, Max=15.5 dBi, per Ken Nist's HDTVPrimer.

... You say that both antennas have same gain roughly...

so, am I reading this correctly.. The M4 is a 4-bay antenna, the HD-8800 is an 8-bay antenna (twice as many elements), but they both have same gain?

That's incredible. And this is due to the M4's properly-modeled whisker length and spacing placement on the boom/wooden plank?

This thread contains a lot of great information. But as it's moving away from the original subject, I'd like to close it off here. I believe there are existing threads which address the Mclapp and 8800 antennas.