I don't mean to de-rail the 91XG testing, but is there anything different about the 91XG and the MXU59 from antennacraft ?
____________________________________________

MXU59
For Extreme Deep Fringe Areas
100" Boom Length,
59 Electronic Elements

*Range up to 60+ Mi. UHF (Ch. 14-69)

Featuring quadriture drive that develops extended resonance

and optimum impedance match across the entire UHF band ! :confused:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/picture.php?albumid=260&pictureid=1729

http://www.antennacraft.net/pdfs/MXU59.pdf

____________________________________________

91XG
•Range: 50-70+ Miles
•Wideband coverage of UHF channels 14-69
•High protection, anti-corrosion, anodized silver aluminum construction
•Reflector grids manufactured from welded, hot dipped, zinc-plated steel with plastic coating
•Low wind load
•Snap-lock quick assembly
•Inclinable mast clamp for horizontal or vertical installation
•High performance, integral PCB balun for true signal matching
•Front to back ratio: 28 dBi
•High gain across entire UHF band (UHF channels 14-69)
•Max Gain 16.7 dB
•Dimensions 22" H x 20" W x 93" Deep

OTA Canuck,

based on the gain figures, the 91XG is 200% stronger.

No worries, sometimes I get confused and forget things from one minute to the next.;) I am just trying to learn as much I can before spending to much more time and money.

I also noticed the gain figures on the MXU59 is less than the 91XG. Many people here are much more knowledgeable about antennas too, so you might try some of the other forum subjects.

based on the gain figures, the 91XG is 200% stronger.
Heh, yeah almost. Their stated gain on the MXU59 is 10.7 dBd, which is 12.85 dBi. I cant imagine with all those elements and directors that its peak gain is that low. That figure must be for channel 14, its worst channel. But why on earth would an antenna manufacturer just post its lowest possible gain. It just doesnt make sense, and is a real mystery of science, heh.

yep, thats weird, heh?


Oops so actually maybe the 91Xg is not that much stronger;)

have you modeled that MX...

have you modeled that MX...
Nope, and googling images of it comes up pretty barren. It doesnt look like too many people own one. (maybe due to the above marketing, heh)

This is my first post, I have been hanging around for a little while. I am coming out of lurkdom. I have made a Hoverman and gave it as a wedding gift. Hey, she asked for it, so she got it.
:cool:

I was thinking about getting the 91XG, but I could purchase two MXU59s for the price of one 91XG, so I thought that maybe two would be better than one. I hope I am right. Of course I bought the two antennas FIRST and then started searching/reading about the MXU59. I am worried that I didn't make the best decision now. After reading around, I have heard of corrosion problems.

Is there something that I can do to help the antennas last longer?

Is the 91XG really that much better? I mean can just one 91XG really do better than two MXU59s?


I ordered two MXU59s and plan on stacking them to pick up some stations 100 to 140 miles away. (Not sure if I am going to do it vertically or horizontally yet) I have a winegard AP-8780 preamplifier. I will not get my antennas up for a while since winter is starting to set in, and I will have to get them set up before I mount them. But when I get them up, I will let ya know what happens.

Resurrecting this thread, I am going to buy the MXU59 and compare it to my 91XG. Just found photos of it on another site and the number of directors is intriguing.

I recall 300ohm modelling the 91XG with round directors and the gain was increased.

I'll try the MXU59 stock and with an added screen reflector once the weather warms up.

What is your winter time (non-tropo) results with the 91XG?

Is it stock/modified, any amplification, etc.?

Looking forward to your comparison test...

The high gain figures for the 91XG are most likely taken from the highest point (peak) on it's gain curve and not representative of it over it's entire UHF range plot. The lower figure for the MXU59 is understandably the mean or average gain figure across its gain curve.

According to the data sheet AD sent me, the 91XG's modeling shows about 11.8 dBi at 470 MHz to a peak of 18.3 dBi at around 765 MHz. This type of curve is typical of any and all wide-band Yagi antennas over this large of frequency span.

Antennacraft only publishes a single gain number ambiguously labeled as "UHF gain".

Give that the boom length and element count of each antenna are very close, I would expect the basic performance of the two antennas to be very similar.

Antennacraft MXU59 on order. I will post my results in April or May.

It is very odd that Antennacraft doesn't try to elaborate on their gain figure. I do believe that some manufacturers exaggerate 'gain' figures. What's just as important is how the antenna will stand up to the elements and even birds, unless it's tucked away in an attic. The higher gain X Beams, as they call them in the UK, are described by one antenna installer/tester there as being less durable than a conventional 18 element Yagi and is clearly evident in some of the pictures lower down in the link below.
http://www.aerialsandtv.com/aerials.html

I have read reviews from people who are quite pleased with the Antennacraft MXU59 and having had a combination VHF/UHF/FM Antennacraft for over 19 years, I can say that it was pretty well built and still delivers excellent signal quality.

I'd be willing to try one out. I'd likely hold onto it if it's more durable than an XG91, and performs similarly.

Come September, a gain of 18.3dBi in the 700MHz band is of no use to me. So the search is on for something with an extreme gain for channel 51 and below--preferably something with high gain at the low end of UHF.

What's just as important is how the antenna will stand up to the elements and even birds, unless it's tucked away in an attic. The higher gain X Beams, as they call them in the UK, are described by one antenna installer/tester there as being less durable than a conventional 18 element Yagi and is clearly evident in some of the pictures lower down in the link below.

It's only really that particular installer who calls them "X Beams" (this actually refers to a type of ham radio antenna). There is no real name for them in the UK - but "X type", "X elements" or "X directors" are used.

They are fine for loft installation, but the majority of ones I have seen outdoors are generally quite deteriorated by birds or snow. Unless very recently installed.

In fact, just down the road from me, there's a house with an aerial where the top halves of the elements are bent down, but the bottom halves are fine. When I get my new camera, I will take a shot!

(Actually the rigid X directors are fine outside, such as the ones by Antiference: http://www.antiference.co.uk/products/aerials , in other words elements that can't be distorted with light pressure. But the Philex ones are like aluminium foil and are rubbish http://www.philex.com/catalogue/category/?id=1058)

While I don't feel the directors on the XG91 are "heavy duty"--mine have stood up quite well. Snow, ice, heat, cold and birds haven't distorted them as yet.

It's too bad hdtvprimer.com hasn't done an eval on the MXU59....

Just looking at the MXU-59, I don't like the way it is connected to the mast in the middle, while the 91XG seems to be better balanced, and less liking to tilt/come down.

It depends where you live, if you will expect to get major ice buildup in Winter. Wind loading for the MXU59 isn't supposed to be an issue- the elements are low profile. I know that on the Wade Antenna site they give the weight figure and also a weight figure with an 1" radial ice buildup, which really adds the pounds. The Wade site states that Dehli Antenna Consumer Products are no longer being made. Their CATV VHF and UHF antennas themselves can be pretty heavy. The Antennacraft MXU59 is made in Illinois, USA vs. China for the 91XG. - Wasn't it called the XG91 when Terrestrial Digital marketed it? Now it's the 91XG?

Beam width of the Antennacraft MXU59 is 32.4 degrees vs. 25 degrees for the Antennas Direct 91XG, so it will be harder to aim and keep locked on the signal if you're using a rotor.

Beam width of the Antennacraft MXU59 is 32.4 degrees vs. 25 degrees for the Antennas Direct 91XG, so it will be harder to aim and keep locked on the signal if you're using a rotor.
True, but that also implies much lower gain. 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. And they make them in the USA, which saves on shipping costs from China.

Ive had 3 or 4 AntennaCraft (RS) antennas, and they are fine, especially if you do some simple common sense beefing up on them to make them last longer. A lot of people complain that they are damaged in the box, yet do nothing to fix the problem and put up a damaged antenna up and complain.
(I know I have an intrinsic sense of the way things should be, but Im constantly completely baffled how some can manage to totally screw things up, heh)

My guess is that the MXU59 would do well with a much larger corner reflector, simply made of 2 X 4 inch mesh attached to the original corner reflector.

It would be nice if an Antenna Craft person responded in this forum. I have a lot of questions, heh.

It would be good if tech people from Antennacraft shared some information and listened to what customers are interested in, because they are a business and why not hear what people want in an antenna or want to know about their antennas? I did read somewhere here that it would wise if Antenna companies did a bit to promote themselves, seeing that digital TV is here and many people are not aware of OTA equipment and potentials and how inexpensive it can be, and it would benefit them- both customers and the companies. You are right, and I do like your point about "having a sense of the way things should be." A bit of elbow grease and one could easily fix a lot of things- antennas and beyond. And why not have some styrofoam in the antenna box to help it from being crushed and banged around and bent in shipment? Because there are people who won't straighten a simple rod because it's not in the instructions.