receiver vs antenna type

[jtkauderer]

What is more responsible for a unit's ability to pick up a signal,

the receiver(12 channel/High-sensitivity GPS receiver) or

the antenna(Built in/Built in quad helix/Quad Helix)?

 

It may be comparing apples to oranges, but I was out this weekend with a friend who has a Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx, and I have the eTrex. Through most of the trip, I had no lock whatsoever, and he never lost us.

 

The units are so different, but I am curious which feature has more to do with his ability to track us all day long. I will be looking for a new unit shortly, and would like to know what I should look for.

 

Thanks

[robertlipe]

It's a combination. You can pair a great antenna with a crappy receiver circuit or vice versa. You can build great Quad Helix or you can build a mistuned Quad Helix.

 

The 60CSx - like it's immediate brothers - pairs a good QH antenna with Sirf's award-winning SirfStar III receiver circuit.

 

Without getting catty about the eTrex, I'll say only that I (and most others with experience with both models) would have predicted exactly the results you observed. ;-)

[jtkauderer]

Without getting catty about the eTrex, I'll say only that I (and most others with experience with both models) would have predicted exactly the results you observed. ;-)

 

I am not defensive about things that I own, so get as catty as you would like!

If I designed it, I might take comments a little more personally.

 

The etrex was a gift years ago, and served the limited purpose that it had relatively well.

Now that I am in the market for a GPS, I am paying more attention than the gift-giver did.

 

I am not looking for a unit as complicated as the 60csx, but would like something that could find me places other than in the middle of lake erie(the most common use of the etrex so far!). The rino, for example pairs a quad helix antenna with the 12 channel receiver(same as the etrex?), and I am curious if a unit like that maintains a better lock, in general.

 

Thanks again.

[+Thrak]

If you want to maintain the type of lock you saw on the 60 Cx you will probably need to get a unit with the SiRF chipset.

[+CheshireFrog]

It's a combination. You can pair a great antenna with a crappy receiver circuit or vice versa. You can build great Quad Helix or you can build a mistuned Quad Helix.

 

The 60CSx - like it's immediate brothers - pairs a good QH antenna with Sirf's award-winning SirfStar III receiver circuit.

 

Without getting catty about the eTrex, I'll say only that I (and most others with experience with both models) would have predicted exactly the results you observed. ;-)

 

You hook this up to an Etrex and you'll never have to worry about signal strength again.

 

 

Of course, you'll need several miles of RG-56 to get to a cache.

[+Prime Suspect]

I am not looking for a unit as complicated as the 60csx, but would like something that could find me places other than in the middle of lake erie(the most common use of the etrex so far!). The rino, for example pairs a quad helix antenna with the 12 channel receiver(same as the etrex?), and I am curious if a unit like that maintains a better lock, in general.

The only reason to get a rino is if you really have need for the GPS/radio combo, and the ability to transmit your location to another rino owner.

[+Fhantazm]

Unfortunately right now, the only was to get the sensitivity of the 60csx is to actually BUY either the 60cx or 60csx (or their larger bretheren the 76 series). The SiRf III reciever in the 60cx/76cx/60csx/76csx series is not duplicated in any other GPS at this time, including the Rino. The only difference between the said 60/76cx and the 60/76csx series is the S series adds an electronic compass and barometric altimeter and cost about $50 more. But for geocaching the electronic compass can be a big help at times.

 

 

 

I am not looking for a unit as complicated as the 60csx, but would like something that could find me places other than in the middle of lake erie(the most common use of the etrex so far!). The rino, for example pairs a quad helix antenna with the 12 channel receiver(same as the etrex?), and I am curious if a unit like that maintains a better lock, in general.

 

Thanks again.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Fhantazm

[jtkauderer]

Unfortunately right now, the only was to get the sensitivity of the 60csx is to actually BUY either the 60cx or 60csx (or their larger bretheren the 76 series). The SiRf III reciever in the 60cx/76cx/60csx/76csx series is not duplicated in any other GPS at this time, including the Rino. The only difference between the said 60/76cx and the 60/76csx series is the S series adds an electronic compass and barometric altimeter and cost about $50 more. But for geocaching the electronic compass can be a big help at times.

 

 

 

I am not looking for a unit as complicated as the 60csx,

 

It appears that I am looking for a unit as complicated as the 60csx, or at least the cx!

[kb9nvh]

Wait a second..I think Lowrance uses SIRF I and is pretty darn sensitive. If never losing lock is our criteria then you need a lowrance or a Garmin. If you want to autoroute then you need the garmin

 

Unfortunately right now, the only was to get the sensitivity of the 60csx is to actually BUY either the 60cx or 60csx (or their larger bretheren the 76 series). The SiRf III reciever in the 60cx/76cx/60csx/76csx series is not duplicated in any other GPS at this time, including the Rino. The only difference between the said 60/76cx and the 60/76csx series is the S series adds an electronic compass and barometric altimeter and cost about $50 more. But for geocaching the electronic compass can be a big help at times.

 

 

 

I am not looking for a unit as complicated as the 60csx, but would like something that could find me places other than in the middle of lake erie(the most common use of the etrex so far!). The rino, for example pairs a quad helix antenna with the 12 channel receiver(same as the etrex?), and I am curious if a unit like that maintains a better lock, in general.

 

Thanks again.

[+BigLarry]

I use the eTrex Vista on my bike handlebars and it works fairly well, only occasinally loosing signal briefly - especially on the north face of steep hills with lots of big trees. I'm surprised it didn't do better for you out in the open on Lake Erie. Are you in the woods near Lake Erie?

 

I also carry a 60 CSx, and it works very well as many note, never loosing signal.

 

To answer your question:

The old 60CS with the helix antennae and older receiver did perform a little better than the eTrex patch antennae.

But the new 60CSx that added the new SiRFIII recevier is like a quantum jump in performance. The SiRFIII is also used on Garmin's Edge bike computers with patch antenaes, and also does very well in reception.

 

So the new SiRFIII receiver makes most all of the difference. Look for that for good reception.

Edited August 22, 2006 by BigLarry

[+Searching_ut]

For the most part, Handheld GPS units being the culmination of all the parts, you can't really tell easily which componet is responsible for different parts of the units performance. You're better off just comparing the different units. That said, I've played with the assorted units and done a lot of side by side just for fun, and would offer the following observations.

 

The antenna is really hard to compare. Older Garmin Patch and Quad units had pretty comperable performance, the exception being the black and white eTex series which was very fussy to orientation, hand placement and a few other things and didn't compare well to the older patch or quad antenna units in some areas. The Magellan units also seemed pretty comperable over the years, but with the older units it was harder to compare being as how the auto averaging feature got added with the Quad antenna units while the patch antenna units didn't have it. The newer Magellan units seem compareable in reception to me though, be it a patch or Quad antenna unit. Also, the newer Garmin Color eTrex units when compared to 60 and 72 non x series is very comperable.

 

The assorted Garmin Sirf III units with quad or patch antennas also appear to be very comperable. I found it quite surprising when I compared a Forerunner 305 to a 60csx, and could find virtually no difference in reception quality (Only a couple hours comparison, limited different reception conditions). One of my workmates who has both an edge 305 with a patch antenna and a 60csx with a quad antenna is under the impression his edge is more accurate at recording tracks. He normally has the 60 in his pack though, so I think his comparison technique is probably flawed and that with a lot of side by side testing they would perform about the same overall.

 

Bottom line do side by sides with different units like you were just doing, then go with the type of unit that works best in the sort of conditions you'll be in. Myself I wouldn't worry too much about the "technology" of the device, just the end results.

[+EScout]

If you want to maintain the type of lock you saw on the 60 Cx you will probably need to get a unit with the SiRF chipset.

 

Unfortunately right now, the only was to get the sensitivity of the 60csx is to actually BUY either the 60cx or 60csx (or their larger bretheren the 76 series). The SiRf III reciever in the 60cx/76cx/60csx/76csx series is not duplicated in any other GPS at this time, including the Rino. The only difference between the said 60/76cx and the 60/76csx series is the S series adds an electronic compass and barometric altimeter and cost about $50 more. But for geocaching the electronic compass can be a big help at times.

 

I disagree. You can get an equally sensitive receiver with the eXplorists or the Lowrance models such as the H2O and Expedition. You will save a lot of money with these models compared to the Garmin 60CX. All of these models are the latest generation and receive better than older models. Also, there is no standard in signal meters on GPS units. They are not standardized S meters and do not give you microvolts received. So we are taking what they show on the screen as reality. One model may decide to not use a signal if it is below a certain level. Also, regarding antennas, there may be some advantages to patch antennas with regard to multi-path reception (which is bad.)

[robertlipe]

Unfortunately right now, the only was to get the sensitivity of the 60csx is to actually BUY either the 60cx or 60csx (or their larger bretheren the 76 series). The SiRf III reciever in the 60cx/76cx/60csx/76csx series is not duplicated in any other GPS at this time,

...except for the OTHER receivers that either feature SirfStar III or a competing receiver that isn't terrible.

 

Magellan's TruFix and, before it, the receiver used in the 330/ST/Meridian line, has reception that isn't quite as hot as SS3 (i.e., it may not work in a parking garage) it tends to work well enough if there happens to be a tree nearby.[1] There are other GPSes on the market - even other Garmins such as Nuvi and Edge - with SS3, though most are on PDA/bluetooth or "puck" style products.

 

While Garmin products dominate the discussion in this forum, there are other units out there.

 

[1] And before anybody starts fussing about "slingshot" in the older units, motion averaging is a different issue than reception...

 

http://www.mtgc.org/robertlipe/showdown very much matches my experience in the woods.

[+Fhantazm]

Ok. If you read my signature you will see that I have owned my fair share of other brands and models. Nowhere in my statement did I say the others have bad reception. However, many have noted, myself included, the extreme sensitivity of the Csx series. To this date, as far as I have seen, there are no other, consumer, handheld units capable of of reception in some of the god awful locations the csx's are able to receive(SiRF III chipset). This has been proven time and time again. This doesnt mean the others are all bad. Quite the contrary. Actually my Lowrane IFinder PhD was pretty darn close to the reception of my csx when the two were compared. The Magellan eXplorist 200 was also a favorite of mine. However there was a noticeable difference. If the OP wants the extreme sensitivity of the csx, then I simply advised him there are no other handheld units on the market today with as good a reception as the csx and this should be the unit to look for.

 

 

 

 

I disagree. You can get an equally sensitive receiver with the eXplorists or the Lowrance models such as the H2O and Expedition. You will save a lot of money with these models compared to the Garmin 60CX. All of these models are the latest generation and receive better than older models. Also, there is no standard in signal meters on GPS units. They are not standardized S meters and do not give you microvolts received. So we are taking what they show on the screen as reality. One model may decide to not use a signal if it is below a certain level. Also, regarding antennas, there may be some advantages to patch antennas with regard to multi-path reception (which is bad.)

Edited August 22, 2006 by Fhantazm

[+Fhantazm]

Ok. The man was talking about a handheld, outdoor GPS receiver not an automotive grade Nuvi or a recreational training device. I guess for those that want to nit pick, I should have said "no other consumer, outdoor, handheld, water resistant, GPSr". My terrible mistake. And lets compare apples to apples. If he wants the kind of reception the csx gives him, then he will not be satisfied with anything else. If he is willing to accept a little less signal reception while still maintaining a very decent accuracy, then the other units may appeal to him. Now I'm not just some csx pusher who believes there is nothing else that will suffice. Not at all! I'm simply stating the facts. Have a good night.

 

...except for the OTHER receivers that either feature SirfStar III or a competing receiver that isn't terrible.

 

Magellan's TruFix and, before it, the receiver used in the 330/ST/Meridian line, has reception that isn't quite as hot as SS3 (i.e., it may not work in a parking garage) it tends to work well enough if there happens to be a tree nearby.[1] There are other GPSes on the market - even other Garmins such as Nuvi and Edge - with SS3, though most are on PDA/bluetooth or "puck" style products.

 

While Garmin products dominate the discussion in this forum, there are other units out there.

 

[1] And before anybody starts fussing about "slingshot" in the older units, motion averaging is a different issue than reception...

 

http://www.mtgc.org/robertlipe/showdown very much matches my experience in the woods.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Fhantazm

[+EScout]

Perhaps readers/posters should read Roberlipe's comparison. The eXplorist is shown as just as accurate, and maybe more (depends on how you define accuracy) because its reported position does not wander around as much as the 60CX, both in a difficult reception location.

[+GOT GPS?]

I have used both Garmins and Magellans, and many of the models of each, and there are so many factors involved with reception, like the height of the GPS off the ground in relation to the body, the angle of the GPS to the sky, and things like cellphones being too close to the GPS.

 

I have used both eTrexes and eXplorists, and the eXplorist is so much more sensitive.

 

I have had the Map60C and now have the Map60Cx, and I was always able to milk quite a bit out of the older map60C by holding it vertical above my head, to force the signal when it was weak in the woods, but it was usually pretty accurate. When I have held my newer Map60Cx waist high, and flat in front of me in the woods, it would start to wander, until I held it up high again.

 

I have found that the GPS units with a stick type antenna like the Map60C/Cx are held up higher off the ground than a GPS with a Patch type antenna, and this seems to be why I like the stick antenna better than the patch antenna.

 

I never did like my eTrex Vista, which never worked well in the woods.

[WR8Y]

 

You hook this up to an Etrex and you'll never have to worry about signal strength again.

 

 

Of course, you'll need several miles of RG-56 to get to a cache.

 

I think I"ll build a back-pack version...

 

WR8Y - Mark, "the antenna 'nut'."

[+EScout]

The photo is of a directional antenna, with gain in one direction. We need omni-directional antennas, like a Quad-helix, patch or Eggbeater II........

[+CheshireFrog]

The photo is of a directional antenna, with gain in one direction. We need omni-directional antennas, like a Quad-helix, patch or Eggbeater II........

 

More to the point, this is a stationary antenna, and will only report the position of the antenna no matter how long the cable is.

[kb9nvh]

I think, even more to the point, that this was a JOKE and given that, he can take certain liberties with the technical details.

 

I loved it!!!

 

The photo is of a directional antenna, with gain in one direction. We need omni-directional antennas, like a Quad-helix, patch or Eggbeater II........

 

More to the point, this is a stationary antenna, and will only report the position of the antenna no matter how long the cable is.

[jtkauderer]

I think, even more to the point, that this was a JOKE and given that, he can take certain liberties with the technical details.

 

I loved it!!!

 

The photo is of a directional antenna, with gain in one direction. We need omni-directional antennas, like a Quad-helix, patch or Eggbeater II........

 

More to the point, this is a stationary antenna, and will only report the position of the antenna no matter how long the cable is.

 

What if you carry such a 'stationary' antenna, but spin around a lot?

Then it is moving in two directions, kind of like a planet in orbit, though probably not a very stationary orbit.

 

But then before too long, I would either throw up from mimicking a whirling dervish, or trip over the miles of cabling required, or both.

[appletree]

One antenna factor that has not been mentioned but might be as important as the type of antenna or the processor is the placement. I use an external antenna with my Quest and I mount it on my hat or the back of my neck and I rarely lose signals, even in deep woods. I use the same antenna with a re-radiating unit with my original Vista and again I rarely lose signal lock. With either unit held close to my body or clipped to my belt while walking in the woods, I often lose signal lock. I think small, light, external antennas with short cables would go a long way toward solving reception problems, even with older devices.