PLL LNB

[cyberham]

I have two in the mail now... looking forward to scanning the skies (esp. 103w) saturday night.

You've convinced me...searching for one to order now! I am very familiar with what my current LNBs can do across the arc. I have a couple of sats with signal levels on the critical edge of receivability which would be the best test for PLL capability. I will report what I find.

 

[toucan-man]

...I have a couple of sats with signal levels on the critical edge of receivability which would be the best test for PLL capability.

PLL technology gave me The Florida Channel. To fall asleep by...

 

[northgeorgia]

I'll just add, if you have RG59 anywhere in your setup, even a tiny bit, and even if it worked well in the past, it may not work as well as the DRO LNBF. I had to rewire under the house with RG6 -- then things were fine

 

[cyberham]

At 1450 MHz, RG-59 cable loss is 9.82 dB per 100 feet. RG-6 loss is 7.89 dB per 100 feet. So you'd have to have a considerable length of cable to make a noticeable difference between the two cable types. Why do you think the RG-6 performs better with a PLL? You didn't have a control for that experiment since you likely didn't have both cable runs available at the same time to test.

Added: The issue may have been contaminated old RG-59 vs new RG-6.

 

[cyberham]

PLL technology gave me The Florida Channel. To fall asleep by...

Sounds like CPAC from the Canadian parliament. A drug-free public service alternative to EZ-Doze sleeping pills. My Avenger is on the way!

 

[northgeorgia]

Added: The issue may have been contaminated old RG-59 vs new RG-6.

Possibly. The line was 10 years old and weathered. However my main RG6 run was over 100 ft., so that also made a difference when it connected up with the RG 59 house cable run.

 

[primestar31]

At 1450 MHz, RG-59 cable loss is 9.82 dB per 100 feet. RG-6 loss is 7.89 dB per 100 feet. So you'd have to have a considerable length of cable to make a noticeable difference between the two cable types. Why do you think the RG-6 performs better with a PLL? You didn't have a control for that experiment since you likely didn't have both cable runs available at the same time to test.

Added: The issue may have been contaminated old RG-59 vs new RG-6.

Almost 2db loss is 66% of the signal. That's a terrible loss, and should be avoided...

 

[cyberham]

2dB loss is not good, but it's only a loss of 33% of the signal. 3dB is halving the signal power to 50%. And this is only if 100 feet of cable is used. Except on marginal receive signals where you're near the receiver threshold, I don't think 33% lower will make a night and day difference. Having said that, I would always use RG-6: easier to buy, lower loss, fairly economical. Why risk problems by using RG-59 or other?

 

[updatelee]

RG6 is 18awg, 2.3amp rating
RG59 is 20awg, 1.5amp rating

Not many people need that much power, but its something you need to keep in mind.

Really it breaks down to all that is moot because RG6 is pretty similar in price if not cheaper alot of the time then RG59. So why would you start out by installing an inferior product. I buy the RG6 solid copper core with quad shielding. And make sure it has a spectrum plot with it, if it doesnt, there is probably a reason why. I just figure why not eliminate possible issues before they arise.

UDL

 

[Test12345]

Question, since i'm an extreme noob and totally forgot the answer(kinda): the only difference between getting a C band and KU band LNB is that the scan will take longer (assuming I only use frequencies in the C band), right?

 

[updatelee]

If your just scanning c band it will take no longer then if you were using cband only lnb

UDL

 

[Test12345]

If your just scanning c band it will take no longer then if you were using cband only lnb

UDL

Oh, well thanks! So whats the downside to having a KU band LNB?

 

[updatelee]

I feel like Im being trolled here, especially with the username Test12345 but whatever I'll answer it anyways.

Its not a downside issue, its a choosing the right lnb for the job issue.

Do you want Cband ? get a Cband lnb
Do you want Kuband ? get a Kuband lnb
Do you want C and Ku Band ? get a C and Ku band lnb

Now there is alot of reasons why, but without getting technical a combo C/Ku lnb will always perform slightly worse then a dedicate C band lnb on a C band dish, and a dedicated Ku band lnb on a Ku dish. But of course that takes more room to have two dish's vs one. So many of us, like me, have a combo lnb so we can only use one dish vs two.

UDL

 

[KE4EST]

I feel like Im being trolled here, especially with the username Test12345 but whatever I'll answer it anyways.

No I he is ok...

 

[Test12345]

Wow, I feel stupid. I just thought KU offered a wider range or something. I'm really not trolling you, I just don't really know much about this stuff.

So i primarily watch channels on 97W (galaxy 19 i think it is)...would I get a c band or ku band pll lnb? I'm pretty sure c band is what i want.

Thanks again!

 

[KE4EST]

To go C-Band you need one of the BIG Dishes....8-10 footer at least.

 

[FaT Air]

3dB is halving the signal power to 50%

Only if power is the reference. But think coax signal sweep tests reference voltage. If that's true, a 3db voltage loss(50%) results in 6db power loss. (1/2 the voltage=1/4 the power on the output end)

Domestic C band, 3.7 to 4.2 Ghz
Domestic Ku band, 11.7 to 12.2 Ghz
You'll notice each is a 'band' .5 Ghz 'wide'. [500Mhz]

 

[Test12345]

To go C-Band you need one of the BIG Dishes....8-10 footer at least.

Gotcha! Im not sure what im mixing up. I guess it wasnt C and KU. I think im mixing up universal and standard LNBs (must be it). Sorry, i just havent been able to mess around with the satellite stuff for a long time, and even a long time ago i didnt really know much about this stuff.

 

[KE4EST]

Yep that is what is was you were mixing up.

 

[northgeorgia]

In that case, either will do. I use a universal because I like picking up anything that might be out there -- but the truth is, there isn't very much. The part of the Ku-band a universal lnbf covers is only on the Atlantic satellites. Guatemala Canal 27 (Spanish religious station) had a test transmission on 53W in that band, but not anymore -- anyway you can still get that station on their normal frequency with a standard lnbf. Other than some occasional feeds, the only full-time transmissions in the band that are unique with a universal lnbf are TBN Enlace (Spanish religious station) on 50W, RASD (Western Sahara liberation station in Arabic and Spanish) on 45W, and Al Nassr TV from Chad (usually in French) on 45W. That's it.