TV Fool  

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Help With Reception

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27-Apr-2014, 9:19 PM   #21
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
GroundUrMast,

Does that make sense? Am I correct regarding the "starred" item on step 5?
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Apr-2014, 10:12 PM   #22
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
I might edit step 3 as follows;

3. If reliable reception is not obtained from each antenna using the new, high quality coax to a single tuner without the use of a distribution amp/splitter or after readjusting aim, if that fails, try new antenna mounting locations , consider changing out that antenna after exhausting all reasonable options.

Your plan is correct to focus on establishing that there is reliable signal at the antennas. Once that's done, the rest of the plan can focus on on getting a good signal to each TV.

Please let us know how things progress.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Apr-2014, 10:38 PM   #23
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulliganman View Post
GroundUrMast,

Does that make sense? Am I correct regarding the "starred" item on step 5?
I'd keep it simple... When you add the preamp to the 91XG you expect the signal metering to indicate either improved signal quality or perhaps no change... You don't expect to see severely degraded performance. (It's possible that the metering may show a small bit of signal quality reduction if you add an amplifier and no additional cable or splitter loss... This is because amplifiers add a small amount of noise.)

If you want to try the preamp on the C2V, the same is true, either improvement or change is acceptable, but not degradation of signal quality.

Rather than adding attenuators at that stage, use the the loss of real cable and a splitter. Remember, the job of the amplifier is to overcome loss due to cables and splitters... So, a good signal from the antenna, though an amplifier will be able to travel through more cable and splitter loss than the unamplified signal.

Save the experimentation with attenuators on the AC7 for when you have proof that the AC7 is reacting poorly to the cable impedance... You may find there is no call for any attenuators at all.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 27-Apr-2014 at 10:45 PM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Apr-2014, 10:52 PM   #24
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
May I suggest that you focus your attention on testing reception at the antennas first... we may be spending too much time on the "what ifs" at this point.

Once you have proven the antennas are producing usable signals, then it makes sense to move on the next phase... Until then, chatting back and forth about it is only an academic exercise that is consuming your time that could be spent solving the problem. (I'm happy to give my time.)

Not trying to 'bust your chops', just trying to help you make progress toward the solution and some relaxed TV viewing.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-Apr-2014, 11:14 PM   #25
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
May I suggest that you focus your attention on testing reception at the antennas first... we may be spending too much time on the "what ifs" at this point.

Once you have proven the antennas are producing usable signals, then it makes sense to move on the next phase... Until then, chatting back and forth about it is only an academic exercise that is consuming your time that could be spent solving the problem. (I'm happy to give my time.)

Not trying to 'bust your chops', just trying to help you make progress toward the solution and some relaxed TV viewing.
You are right regarding the "what ifs." I was just trying to be prepared for all scenarios because I've found most service help who can do antenna work/repair are far from experts.
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Apr-2014, 12:24 AM   #26
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
I might edit step 3 as follows;

3. If reliable reception is not obtained from each antenna using the new, high quality coax to a single tuner without the use of a distribution amp/splitter or after readjusting aim, if that fails, try new antenna mounting locations , consider changing out that antenna after exhausting all reasonable options.

Your plan is correct to focus on establishing that there is reliable signal at the antennas. Once that's done, the rest of the plan can focus on on getting a good signal to each TV.

Please let us know how things progress.
I will update. Right now, I have to wait for everything to come in. I don't guess there's anyway I can get you to recommend a replacement for the C2V if after exhausting all reasonable options it proves unreliable. I would like to avoid 2 service calls.
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Apr-2014, 2:59 AM   #27
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
The information from your TV Fool report says the C2V should be doing well receiving KSPR, KOLR, KYTV, KOZL & KOZK if aimed correctly, facing about 55 per a compass. If your results are not improved by changes to aim, height or location then I would step up several notches in performance. Apparently there is some factor that TV fool has no way of knowing and as a result your TVFR may not accurately show the conditions you really face.

A few of options to consider, The Winegard HD7698P and either the Antennacraft HBU-44 or HBU-55. All of these antennas are considerably larger than your TV fool report would suggest.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 28-Apr-2014 at 3:02 AM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Apr-2014, 11:24 PM   #28
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
The HBU-33 is going to offer more H-VHF (real CH-7 through CH-13) gain than the dipole section of the C2V. Offhand, I don't think there will be much difference in the UHF performance.

So, yes the HBU-33 could be considered an alternate for the C2V.

The added gain of the larger versions (HBU-44 & 55 or the Winegard HD7698P) would still be my recommendation if the C2V can't be adjusted to give satisfactory performance. Again, based on your TV Fool signal report, the C2V appears to be a very good choice. I don't have any reason to speak poorly of it.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-May-2014, 1:19 AM   #29
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
The HBU-33 is going to offer more H-VHF (real CH-7 through CH-13) gain than the dipole section of the C2V. Offhand, I don't think there will be much difference in the UHF performance.

So, yes the HBU-33 could be considered an alternate for the C2V.

The added gain of the larger versions (HBU-44 & 55 or the Winegard HD7698P) would still be my recommendation if the C2V can't be adjusted to give satisfactory performance. Again, based on your TV Fool signal report, the C2V appears to be a very good choice. I don't have any reason to speak poorly of it.
Can anyone recommend some good coaxial cable at reasonable prices? I was looking at some quad shielded at monoprice until they told me it is not rated for outdoor use.
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-May-2014, 8:05 AM   #30
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
I've been satisfied with the standard dual shield product stocked at Home Depot. I've used the factory assembled cables as well as the 100' & 500' rolls of bulk product.

I can't think of many instances where quad-shielding provides any tangible benefit in an OTA antenna application. The primary purpose of quad-shielding is in applications such as satellite LNB to receiver... Where the frequencies overlap with terrestrial microwave systems. Any signal leaking in or out of the cable would pose an interference problem. If the product is priced the same or you want to be able to use the cable in a satellite system at a later date, then certainly use it, it will do fine in an OTA application.

In OTA antenna applications, the antenna end of the coax is effectively open to the air, given that it's intentionally connected to the antenna. A small amount of signal leaking through the shield poses no significant problem.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 10-May-2014 at 8:08 AM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-May-2014, 5:11 PM   #31
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
I've been satisfied with the standard dual shield product stocked at Home Depot. I've used the factory assembled cables as well as the 100' & 500' rolls of bulk product.

I can't think of many instances where quad-shielding provides any tangible benefit in an OTA antenna application. The primary purpose of quad-shielding is in applications such as satellite LNB to receiver... Where the frequencies overlap with terrestrial microwave systems. Any signal leaking in or out of the cable would pose an interference problem. If the product is priced the same or you want to be able to use the cable in a satellite system at a later date, then certainly use it, it will do fine in an OTA application.

In OTA antenna applications, the antenna end of the coax is effectively open to the air, given that it's intentionally connected to the antenna. A small amount of signal leaking through the shield poses no significant problem.
Not sure if you were saying quad shield cable can pose an interference problem or not....

I saw these options at Home Depot:

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Southwire...specifications

http://www.homedepot.com/p/Southwire...8245/202316478

They are also available at Amazon. If I get a spool, what connectors do I need? Is there any other tools, etc. I need?

Am I wrong to thing this wouldn't work if the cable has to be run outside:

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_i...seq=1&format=2

I'm wondering about these as well: http://www.mediabridgeproducts.com/s...idCategory=237

If I have to replace I want to replace with it with a very good cable.

Last edited by mulliganman; 10-May-2014 at 5:57 PM.
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-May-2014, 6:19 PM   #32
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
I'm saying that quad-shielding is over-kill, not worth spending the extra money for.

It won't hurt, but it offers no benefit in an OTA application.

If I was able to pay $15 less for the 500' reel of standard (non-quad) wire, that's the route I would go.

I'm currently working through a 50 pack of connectors, (# 92-650, Home Depot SKU 373290). I've used other brands such as Paladin in the past and have had no problems with either.

I've been using a kit like this for several years now, http://www.amazon.com/DataShark-7001...shark+coax+kit

For sealing connections exposed to the weather, I use a tight layer of Scotch 2228 sealing tape, protected from sun light with a layer of good black UV resistant vinyl electrical tape (Scotch 88T is great if you can find it for a fair price).
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 10-May-2014 at 11:02 PM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-May-2014, 1:22 AM   #33
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
I'm saying that quad-shielding is over-kill, not worth spending the extra money for.

It won't hurt, but it offers no benefit in an OTA application.

If I was able to pay $15 less for the 500' reel of standard (non-quad) wire, that's the route I would go.

I'm currently working through a 50 pack of connectors, (# 92-650, Home Depot SKU 373290). I've used other brands such as Paladin in the past and have had no problems with either.

I've been using a kit like this for several years now, http://www.amazon.com/DataShark-7001...shark+coax+kit

For sealing connections exposed to the weather, I use a tight layer of Scotch 2228 sealing tape, protected from sun light with a layer of good black UV resistant vinyl electrical tape (Scotch 88T is great if you can find it for a fair price).
is this the tape you are referring to: http://www.amazon.com/Scotch-Rubber-...ds=scotch+2228

http://www.amazon.com/Scotch-Electri...rds=scotch+88t
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-May-2014, 2:47 AM   #34
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
That's the products... Though I prefer the 3/4" or 1" wide version. I find both in stock at Home Depot.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-May-2014, 3:28 AM   #35
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
not to continue beating a dead horse but how does this compare to the southwire coax at Home Depot:

http://www.amazon.com/COMMSCOPE-500F...ommscope+18awg
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-May-2014, 4:00 AM   #36
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
I'd use either.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-May-2014, 8:23 PM   #37
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
I need someone to help me by sharing at what MHz my channels are broadcasting on so I can better compare some cable I am looking at for attenuation.

https://www.ccixpress.com/wcsstore/C...s/9-/92003.pdf

https://www.ccixpress.com/wcsstore/C.../9-/920414.pdf

https://www.ccixpress.com/wcsstore/C...s/9-/92041.pdf

http://www.belden.com/techdatas/english/7915A.pdf
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-May-2014, 8:28 PM   #38
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
Use the real channel number listed in your TV Fool Report to cross reference the frequencies listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televis...el_frequencies

The bottom line is that real UHF channels 14 through 51 span 470 MHz to 698 MHz. Each channel is 6 MHz wide.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-May-2014, 11:50 PM   #39
mulliganman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundUrMast View Post
Use the real channel number listed in your TV Fool Report to cross reference the frequencies listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televis...el_frequencies

The bottom line is that real UHF channels 14 through 51 span 470 MHz to 698 MHz. Each channel is 6 MHz wide.
Thank you. So, I shouldn't be concerned with any attenuation numbers above 700 MHz??? Correct?
mulliganman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-May-2014, 5:07 PM   #40
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulliganman View Post
Thank you. So, I shouldn't be concerned with any attenuation numbers above 700 MHz??? Correct?
Correct, unless you intend to run Ethernet via MoCA. MoCA frequencies extend up to 1500 MHz. But the MoCA equipment can tolerate much higher losses, so I very seriously doubt you'll find a reason to be concerned beyond an academic curiosity.

http://www.mocalliance.org/marketing...cteristics.pdf

If you don't know what MoCA is, you're probably not using it. http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=13034
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back   TV Fool > Over The Air Services > Help With Reception


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT. The time now is 7:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © TV Fool, LLC