
- Garmins-highsensitivity-receivers
- 09-07-2009
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I have done a side by side comparison of the GPSMAP 60CSx and the GPSMAP
76CSx and am aware of the differences features in the units but can anyone
tell me why the 60CSx apparently needs what appears to be an external areal
and the 76CSx does not when both are supposed to be "high-sensitivity
receivers".
Thanks,
MP
MP wrote:
When you look at the specs on those two receivers from the Garmin
product pages there is no mention of the antenna on either one.
If you look at the product page for the 76Cx and click on the Specs tab
there is a link to a detailed specs document:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/assets/pdfs/specs/gpsmap76cx_76csx_spec.pdf
That document is for both the 76Cx and 76CSx and says they both have
"built in quad helix" antennas.
So at first glance the Garmin web pages might imply that the 60Cx and
60CSx have a different antenna than the 76Cx/CSx. Or maybe even no
antenna at all. But I've been told by Garmin tech support that all of
those receivers have identical antennas.
Just out of curiosity I edited the link above to change 76 to 60 where
it appears and it brought up a document that supports what the tech
support person said, that the 60 series have quad helix antennas also:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/assets/pdfs/specs/gpsmap60cx_60csx_spec.pdf
So if you held those receivers, one in each hand, pointing in the same
direction and with the cases at the same angle, (the antennas are
optimized for reception with the receiver held at a normal viewing
angle) you should have gotten very similar results.
How were you measuring the difference you report?
Jack
> MP wrote:
>> I have done a side by side comparison of the GPSMAP 60CSx and the GPSMAP
>> 76CSx and am aware of the differences features in the units but can
>> anyone tell me why the 60CSx apparently needs what appears to be an
>> external areal and the 76CSx does not when both are supposed to be
>> "high-sensitivity receivers".
>> 76CSx and am aware of the differences features in the units but can
>> anyone tell me why the 60CSx apparently needs what appears to be an
>> external areal and the 76CSx does not when both are supposed to be
>> "high-sensitivity receivers".
> https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/assets/pdfs/specs/gpsmap60cx_60csx_spec.pdf
> So if you held those receivers, one in each hand, pointing in the same
> direction and with the cases at the same angle, (the antennas are
> optimized for reception with the receiver held at a normal viewing angle)
> you should have gotten very similar results.
> How were you measuring the difference you report?
> Jack
> So if you held those receivers, one in each hand, pointing in the same
> direction and with the cases at the same angle, (the antennas are
> optimized for reception with the receiver held at a normal viewing angle)
> you should have gotten very similar results.
> How were you measuring the difference you report?
> Jack
Sorry if I mislead my observations where purely of a visual nature, it's the
look of the 60CSx with its aerial looking lump on top of the unit that gave
me the impression whereas other units such as the eTrex and 76 ranges have
no such extension on top of the unit. This lead me to wonder why it was
there considering it adds to the size of the unit and IMHO makes it less
pocket friendly.
MP
>> MP wrote:
>>> I have done a side by side comparison of the GPSMAP 60CSx and the GPSMAP
>>> 76CSx and am aware of the differences features in the units but can
>>> anyone tell me why the 60CSx apparently needs what appears to be an
>>> external areal and the 76CSx does not when both are supposed to be
>>> "high-sensitivity receivers".
>>> 76CSx and am aware of the differences features in the units but can
>>> anyone tell me why the 60CSx apparently needs what appears to be an
>>> external areal and the 76CSx does not when both are supposed to be
>>> "high-sensitivity receivers".
>> https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/assets/pdfs/specs/gpsmap60cx_60csx_spec.pdf
>> So if you held those receivers, one in each hand, pointing in the same
>> direction and with the cases at the same angle, (the antennas are
>> optimized for reception with the receiver held at a normal viewing angle)
>> you should have gotten very similar results.
>> How were you measuring the difference you report?
>> Jack
>> So if you held those receivers, one in each hand, pointing in the same
>> direction and with the cases at the same angle, (the antennas are
>> optimized for reception with the receiver held at a normal viewing angle)
>> you should have gotten very similar results.
>> How were you measuring the difference you report?
>> Jack
> Sorry if I mislead my observations where purely of a visual nature, it's
> the look of the 60CSx with its aerial looking lump on top of the unit that
> gave me the impression whereas other units such as the eTrex and 76 ranges
> have no such extension on top of the unit. This lead me to wonder why it
> was there considering it adds to the size of the unit and IMHO makes it
> less pocket friendly.
> MP
Also, remember the 76CSx is "water proof" and floats.
> the look of the 60CSx with its aerial looking lump on top of the unit that
> gave me the impression whereas other units such as the eTrex and 76 ranges
> have no such extension on top of the unit. This lead me to wonder why it
> was there considering it adds to the size of the unit and IMHO makes it
> less pocket friendly.
> MP
The reason in floats, and I can attest to the fact it does, is because of
the big "air pocket" on top of the unit.
The antenna is basically the same on both units, but, the 76CSx antenna is
"hidden" inside the "air pocket" on top.
Dropped mine while fishing from a boat, the rubber seals on the back in fact
kept the water out, was only in the water about 20 seconds.
Would not want to leave it there very long but it did work as advertised.
Just my two cents worth.
Sam
>> Sorry if I mislead my observations where purely of a visual nature, it's
>> the look of the 60CSx with its aerial looking lump on top of the unit
>> that gave me the impression whereas other units such as the eTrex and 76
>> ranges have no such extension on top of the unit. This lead me to wonder
>> why it was there considering it adds to the size of the unit and IMHO
>> makes it less pocket friendly.
>> MP
>> the look of the 60CSx with its aerial looking lump on top of the unit
>> that gave me the impression whereas other units such as the eTrex and 76
>> ranges have no such extension on top of the unit. This lead me to wonder
>> why it was there considering it adds to the size of the unit and IMHO
>> makes it less pocket friendly.
>> MP
> Also, remember the 76CSx is "water proof" and floats.
> The reason in floats, and I can attest to the fact it does, is because of
> the big "air pocket" on top of the unit.
> The antenna is basically the same on both units, but, the 76CSx antenna is
> "hidden" inside the "air pocket" on top.
> Dropped mine while fishing from a boat, the rubber seals on the back in
> fact kept the water out, was only in the water about 20 seconds.
> Would not want to leave it there very long but it did work as advertised.
> Just my two cents worth.
> Sam
>So can anyone shed any light on the aerial looking lump on the 60 range,
>has it in fact a real purpose for enhancing the signal or is it just some
>sort of looks thing ?
MP
> The reason in floats, and I can attest to the fact it does, is because of
> the big "air pocket" on top of the unit.
> The antenna is basically the same on both units, but, the 76CSx antenna is
> "hidden" inside the "air pocket" on top.
> Dropped mine while fishing from a boat, the rubber seals on the back in
> fact kept the water out, was only in the water about 20 seconds.
> Would not want to leave it there very long but it did work as advertised.
> Just my two cents worth.
> Sam
>So can anyone shed any light on the aerial looking lump on the 60 range,
>has it in fact a real purpose for enhancing the signal or is it just some
>sort of looks thing ?
- How is speed calculated? (Nuvi 660)
- Garmin GPS
- 2011-02-11
- Erratic GPS signals
- Satellite Navigation
- 2010-04-07
- Receiver sensitivity for Oregon 400T
- Garmin GPS
- 2010-03-06
- GPS 60
- Garmin GPS
- 2008-06-17








> 76CSx and am aware of the differences features in the units but can
> anyone tell me why the 60CSx apparently needs what appears to be an
> external areal and the 76CSx does not when both are supposed to be
> "high-sensitivity receivers".
>