- This topic has 11 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Having experienced some issues with RF signal degradation in the 530 MHz CH (68) range of channels using a passive splitter e.g. maximum signal quality being 10 with no signal being 0 through my Panasonic TV, I decided to do some further investigation. The TV was only showing around 2 on that particular frequency with regular pixelation and freezing, especially on the ‘Yesterday’ channel.
I have acquired numerous RF leads over the years when buying different products so I started trying different ones. I did in fact try eight different leads, all with the same disappointing results. I then remembered I had some of the old type ‘brown’ aerial cable that installers used to use from the aerial to inside a property. As I also had some connectors it didn’t take me long to make up a RF fly lead using the brown cable.
The results were immediate and dramatic – signal strength and quality are now maximum 10s across all muxes. It really does demonstrate how having properly shielded quality cables can make a real difference to TV reception. As for all the spare RF leads I have, I think I will take those to the recycling centre on my next visit.
It does make you wonder how often when people complain of viewing issues the problem could be more about the quality of ‘leads’ rather than problems with hardware.
I make my own from Webro WF100 satellite grade coax. I fit screw on f connectors and fit f to Belling Lee converters (male or female as required).
grahamlthompson – 8 minutes ago »
I make my own from Webro WF100 satellite grade coax. I fit screw on f connectors and fit f to Belling Lee converters (male or female as required).
TBH Graham whilst I always make sure the satellite and broadband cabling is top notch I tend to ignore the RF, thinking ‘oh it’s only the RF, one of these supplied cables will work fine’ – silly really if I think about it.
Yours sound like just the business. I must have had that brown cable ‘unused’ in the loft for twenty years or more – I doubt you can get it now, lovely copper core and copper bradeing.
The only good thing about this so called high quality double screened RF cable is that it’s relatively cheap. It’s cheap because it has a very open weave copper braid and a metallic foil to fill in the gaps (double screened my foot 😆 ), the foil being much cheaper than a full copper braid. There must be thousands of people who have thrown away perfectly good aerial cable (as you have noted Faust) on the advice of well meaning forum members when their real problem was more like a badly fitted connector. And I can’t understand (Graham) why you think it’s better to fit two connectors at the end of a cable rather than fitting the standard co-ax plug properly.
Biggles – 20 minutes ago  »Â
The only good thing about this so called high quality double screened RF cable is that it’s relatively cheap. It’s cheap because it has a very open weave copper braid and a metallic foil to fill in the gaps (double screened my foot 😆 ), the foil being much cheaper than a full copper braid. There must be thousands of people who have thrown away perfectly good aerial cable (as you have noted Faust) on the advice of well meaning forum members when their real problem was more like a badly fitted connector. And I can’t understand (Graham) why you think it’s better to fit two connectors at the end of a cable rather than fitting the standard co-ax plug properly.
Four reasons,.
1 Can’t be bothered to solder Belling Lees
2 The converters are better quality and do not get loose in the sockets and fall out as the normal aluminium ones do
3 Belling Lees aren’t a good 75 ohm match (hence the use at higher frequencies as used by satellite if)
4 Unlike Belling Lees onve made the connection is 100% reliable.
WF100 is designed to be used with F connectors. It’s certainly not cheap.
http://www.webro.com/coaxial/tv-satellite/wf100-cable/
You are thinking of RG6 coax.
Compare the specs
http://www.satcure.co.uk/tech/cablespecs.htm
Better quality Freeview kit like splitters and aerials use F connectors these days anyway.
Apparently I am not alone either.
https://www.avforums.com/threads/distributing-sky-signal-with-coax.2012191/#post-23245509
This may be of interest
Does decent cable reduce interference ?
Quote:1 Can’t be bothered to solder Belling LeesLike the handful of professionally installed aerial systems I’ve been involved with.
Quote:2 The converters are better quality and do not get loose in the sockets and fall out as the normal aluminium ones doNo, not mine, but then I don’t brutalise my kit.
Quote:3 Belling Lees aren’t a good 75 ohm match (hence the use at higher frequencies as used by satellite if)You mean the plug/socket combination manufactures have used on TVs, videos, etc for an aerial connection since the year dot is not a good 75 ohm match, someone ought to look into this.
Quote:4 Unlike Belling Lees onve made the connection is 100% reliable.Sorry, don’t understand this.
Quote:You are thinking of RG6 coax.So what do you think most people get installed in their homes.
Biggles – 9 minutes ago  »Â
Quote:1 Can’t be bothered to solder Belling LeesLike the handful of professionally installed aerial systems I’ve been involved with.
Quote:2 The converters are better quality and do not get loose in the sockets and fall out as the normal aluminium ones doNo, not mine, but then I don’t brutalise my kit.
Quote:3 Belling Lees aren’t a good 75 ohm match (hence the use at higher frequencies as used by satellite if)You mean the plug/socket combination manufactures have used on TVs, videos, etc for an aerial connection since the year dot is not a good 75 ohm match, someone ought to look into this.
Quote:4 Unlike Belling Lees onve made the connection is 100% reliable.Sorry, don’t understand this.
Quote:You are thinking of RG6 coax.So what do you think most people get installed in their homes.
My post specifically referred to WF100. It made no reference to cheap and nasty so called low loss coax or RG65.
I imagine these days most satellite installs use WF65 shotgun cable (the standard cable used by Sky installers)
What frequency do you think a connector designed in 1922 was designed to be suitable for ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling-Lee_connector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_connector (see usage).
Have you actually tried using F connectors and converters ? Or is it just down to pre-conceived ideas ?
grahamlthompson – 22 minutes ago »
My post specifically referred to WF100. It made no reference to cheap and nasty so called low loss coax or RG65.
I imagine these days most satellite installs use WF65 shotgun cable (the standard cable used by Sky installers)
What frequency do you think a connector designed in 1922 was designed to be suitable for ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling-Lee_connector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_connector (see usage).
Have you actually tried using F connectors and converters ? Or is it just down to pre-conceived ideas ?
Reread your post #5, you refer to RG6 co-ax about half way down. Not sure where RG65 comes from.
Faust’s original post was referring to terrestrial TV (although the channel number should be 28 not 68) not satellite.
Biggles – In signal quality and signal strength mode on the Panasonic TV all channels which share a frequency e.g. 530 MHz CH(68) are displayed in this fashion with the channel ident above. I believe this mux to be COM6. None of the channels on the frequency are listed as CH(28) as per your post – all are CH(68).
Faust – 33 minutes ago »
Biggles – In signal quality and signal strength mode on the Panasonic TV all channels which share a frequency e.g. 530 MHz CH(68) are displayed in this fashion with the channel ident above. I believe this mux to be COM6. None of the channels on the frequency are listed as CH(28) as per your post – all are CH(68).
The reason I said you’d written 68 but meant 28 is because UHF channel 28 is 530MHz which you also mention in your first post. All UHF channels above 60 were withdrawn for TV use to make way for the new mobile network (or whatever it is).
Biggles – 14 hours ago  »Â
Faust – 33 minutes ago  »Â
Biggles – In signal quality and signal strength mode on the Panasonic TV all channels which share a frequency e.g. 530 MHz CH(68) are displayed in this fashion with the channel ident above. I believe this mux to be COM6. None of the channels on the frequency are listed as CH(28) as per your post – all are CH(68).
The reason I said you’d written 68 but meant 28 is because UHF channel 28 is 530MHz which you also mention in your first post. All UHF channels above 60 were withdrawn for TV use to make way for the new mobile network (or whatever it is).
I stand corrected – you are right. However, I too was right (sort of). I have my channel update message switched off so haven’t updated channels for ages. I have done an update since reading your post and CH68 is now being displayed as CH28.
I just wish I had taken a screen shot prior to updating to prove I wasn’t imagining it.
Faust – 3 hours ago  » I stand corrected – you are right. However, I too was right (sort of). I have my channel update message switched off so haven’t updated channels for ages. I have done an update since reading your post and CH68 is now being displayed as CH28.
I just wish I had taken a screen shot prior to updating to prove I wasn’t imagining it.
You would have seen that UHF channel 68 is 850MHz not 530MHz although 850MHz is now a 4G frequency. I guess the TV must have retained the now defunct channel 68 number. However all sorted now with a retune, I’m sure there’ll be another required in a few days time. 😥
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.