you know me too well...
I don't think the attenuator idea is a generally attractive one for most people.
And I discussed other options, above.
However, here is something -close- to the sort of attenuator I was talking about (
warning: PDF file).
They do come in 75 ohm versions, so that's a moot point.
The power to the LNB is a problem and would need to be routed around the attenuator in the usual way.
The idea with an attenuator, would be to put it in line between the receiver and LNB...
... set it for no attenuation...
. . . then slowly lower the signal (increase the attenuation) 'till you got a pixilated picture.
Then, note the Q-rating on the receiver at this point as a reference.
You might also note how much attenuation (how many
db) you had to apply before screwing up your signal.
And I do think that "pixelated picture" should probably be the criterion, but that's up for argument.
When comparing two receivers, you'd have to do them within minutes of each other.
Or do 1, 2, 1, 2, and see if the numbers match.
Better yet, you should do them in parallel (at the same time).
What you would get, is how many
db down from the nominal signal, each could hold a clean picture.
One would obviously be the winner.
Just being able to say brand X held 6
db longer than brand Y, might be a revelation!
Of course, that would only be taken as truth, once several other members confirmed.
You could also report to the group, what point on the receiver's Q-scale it lost the picture to breakup.
Hopefully, the latter would be useful to other members with that receiver.
But in summation, the problem with DC at the attenuator, getting a decent attenuator, using it within its rated frequency, cost, et al, just make it a harsh choice for most members, here.
So, we should probably find a more simple method.
(didn't help, did it? )
