C238 LNBF Dual Output vs. C2-PLL with 5G WiMAX 4G LTE Radar Interference Filter

[mr3p]

Hi Titanium,
I happen to visit your store and noticed you had added new LNBFs which I am guessing means you are expecting inventory soon. I currently have your C2PLL with low band filter LNBF and was just trying to compare specs to see differences. As I always appreciate learning from you, could you give us your thoughts on how they compare and any pros or cons? I see the C238 has a narrower IF range which might impact reception of some current feeds (mostly Spanish) until they are relocated. Other than higher IF cutoff, are there differences or advantages of the C238 filter? Is the C238 non-PLL and how might that matter? Thanks as always for bringing us new products.

 

[FTA4PA]

Any idea of the price for the C138 and C238 at this time Titanium?

 

[mr3p]

	C2-PLL with 5G WiMAX 4G LTE Radar Interference Filter	C238 LNBF Dual Output - 5G Red Band Pass Filter
Input Frequency Range	3.70 ~ 4.20GHz	3.80 ~ 4.20GHz
Output Frequency Range	950 ~ 1450MHz	950 ~ 1350MHz
L.O. Frequency	5150MHz	5150MHz
Noise Temperature	15K typical	15K typical
LO Stability	± 50Khz	± 1MHz
LO Phase Noise @ 1Khz	-72dBc	-65dBc
LO Phase Noise @ 10Khz	-81dBc	-95dBc
LO Phase Noise @ 100Khz	-90dBc	-110dBc
Conversion Gain	65dB typical	65dB typical
Gain Flatness	±4dB	±1dB/36MHz?
Gain Variation	±1dB / 27 MHz	±1dB?
Image Rejection	-45dB	-50dB
Crosstalk Isolation	20dB typical	20dB (min)
Current	145mA [max]	150mA [max]
Output VSWR	2.0 : 1	2.5 : 1
Temperature Range	-22 ~ +140°F / -40 ~ +60°C	-22 ~ +140°F

 

[Captain Midnight]

	C2-PLL with 5G WiMAX 4G LTE Radar Interference Filter	C238 LNBF Dual Output - 5G Red Band Pass Filter
Input Frequency Range	3.70 ~ 4.20GHz	3.80 ~ 4.20GHz
Output Frequency Range	950 ~ 1450MHz	950 ~ 1350MHz
L.O. Frequency	5150MHz	5150MHz
Noise Temperature	15K typical	15K typical
LO Stability	± 50Khz	± 1MHz
LO Phase Noise @ 1Khz	-72dBc	-65dBc
LO Phase Noise @ 10Khz	-81dBc	-95dBc
LO Phase Noise @ 100Khz	-90dBc	-110dBc
Conversion Gain	65dB typical	65dB typical
Gain Flatness	±4dB	±1dB/36MHz?
Gain Variation	±1dB / 27 MHz	±1dB?
Image Rejection	-45dB	-50dB
Crosstalk Isolation	20dB typical	20dB (min)
Current	145mA [max]	150mA [max]
Output VSWR	2.0 : 1	2.5 : 1
Temperature Range	-22 ~ +140°F / -40 ~ +60°C	-22 ~ +140°F

Interesting. The stability is higher on this newer model. But Phase noise is way down and the gain is much flatter. Should be interesting to test.

 

[mr3p]

Unless I am mistaken, you want stability to be a lower number. The stability of the C2-PLL is much better than the C238

​

 

[mr3p]

Since I'm already talking to myself... To the best of my knowledge, I'm not currently being affected by 5g although I'm sure its coming. Just wondering if there would be any value in a new "5g" scalar design to shield the LNB from signal outside of that reflected from the dish. Titanium any thoughts?

 

[Titanium]

Sorry, have been quite busy over the weekend.

Yes, we have the new C138 and C238 LNBFs inbound. Have not set the retail price as the shipment is still moving through customs, dock warehousing and ground logistics. The cost is increasing by the day during these processing delays...

These models are very effective in attenuating outside the narrower band pass frequency range and preventing front-end conversion overload. After the next c-band auction and reallocation, we will manufacture the C140 and C240 models with the reduced frequency band pass range of 4.0 to 4.2GHz.

Most satellite hobbyists rarely chase the narrow SCPC radio and data carriers. The majority of hobbyists focus on the wider video SCPC and MCPC. With these wider signals, the stability figure is less critical and my focus was on the ability to mitigate interference for the uses of our primary market.

Why should one upgrade from the C1-PLL or C2-PLL to the C138 or C238 LNBFs? No need to install a filtered LNBF with narrower BPF (Band Pass Filter) if you do not have RF interference. As usual, you won't find me trying to sell hobbyists something that they don't need...

You may find one scalar design to be better suited to your specific reflector's characteristics. With that said, I see little benefit to the new universal "5G" scalars being promoted for rejecting 5G interference. My observation is that these "5G" scalars have similar results to fabricating a side wing or deeper cone to your existing scalar to minimize off-axis entry of terrestrial signals. If the current scalar is properly installed, the reflector illumination area and side lobe attenuation are already optimized. Those experiencing SNR gains likely are benefiting from a design that is better matched to their reflector or better positioned scalar. One cannot argue if a change results in more reliable reception.

You need to be aware of the signal path that interference is reaching the feed. If off-axis terrestrial signals are directly entering the feed, it would be better to shield the entire reflector and feed from unwanted signals with reflector rim mounted hardware, a shielding "RF" fence or a behind a structure. A motorized dish creates a moving target for rejecting terrestrial interference...

 

[FTA4PA]

Sorry, have been quite busy over the weekend.

Yes, we have the new C138 and C238 LNBFs inbound. Have not set the retail price as the shipment is still moving through customs, dock warehousing and ground logistics. The cost is increasing by the day during these processing delays...

These models are very effective in attenuating outside the narrower band pass frequency range and preventing front-end conversion overload. After the next c-band auction and reallocation, we will manufacture the C140 and C240 models with the reduced frequency band pass range of 4.0 to 4.2GHz.

Most satellite hobbyists rarely chase the narrow SCPC radio and data carriers. The majority of hobbyists focus on the wider video SCPC and MCPC. With these wider signals, the stability figure is less critical and my focus was on the ability to mitigate interference for the uses of our primary market.

Why should one upgrade from the C1-PLL or C2-PLL to the C138 or C238 LNBFs? No need to install a filtered LNBF with narrower BPF (Band Pass Filter) if you do not have RF interference.

You may find one scalar design to be better suited to your specific reflector's characteristics. With that said, I see little benefit to the new universal "5G" scalars being promoted for rejecting 5G interference. My observation is that these "5G" scalars have similar results to fabricating a side wing or deeper cone to your existing scalar to minimize off-axis entry of terrestrial signals. If the current scalar is properly installed, the reflector illumination area and side lobe attenuation are already optimized. Those experiencing SNR gains likely are benefiting from a design that is better matched to their reflector or better positioned scalar. One cannot argue if a change results in more reliable eception.

You need to be aware of the signal path that interference is reaching the feed. If off-axis terrestrial signals are directly entering the feed, it would be better to shield the entire reflector and feed from unwanted signals with reflector rim mounted hardware, a shielding "RF" fence or a behind a structure. A motorized dish creates a moving target for rejecting terrestrial interference...

I'm down to my last C2-PLL so was just wondering. Thanks for the info. I saw a story the other day (can't recall where) about the backlog for unloading ships out in California. Hope you have good luck on getting them through and thanks for supporting our hobby!

 

[moonbase]

That C238 does not look like a PLL to me with the LO stability of 1MHz. It is 20 times the value of the C2-PLL.

 

[moonbase]

Unless I am mistaken, you want stability to be a lower number. The stability of the C2-PLL is much better than the C238

​

Yes agreed, C2-PLL has way better LO stability.

 

[c-spand]

i am getting all signals like normal on all sats except 121. i use to get 410 no problem now cannot lock this at all. i do get 2 data v signals but nada on any video. Not sure but maybe this is the 5 g interference.

 

[catamount]

That C238 does not look like a PLL to me with the LO stability of 1MHz. It is 20 times the value of the C2-PLL.

Where did Brian say it was a Pll lnbf?

 

[Titanium]

i am getting all signals like normal on all sats except 121. i use to get 410 no problem now cannot lock this at all. i do get 2 data v signals but nada on any video. Not sure but maybe this is the 5 g interference.

As 5G is not yet using the C-band reallocated frequencies in North America, I would look for other reception issues.

No, the C138 and C238 are not PLL based. As mentioned in my previous post, narrow SCPC usage is likely to be reduced with the shrinking band and we are focusing on filtered LNBF designs which provide the best interference mitigation. In our testing,, the 3800 - 4000 MHz band pass filtering works best on the non-PLL chipset builds.

The stability has been tested to be well below 1MHz (+/- 3MHz is typical in rhe market for DRO LNBFs), but we chose to spec. the max stability drift for 1MHz for premanufacturing chip sorting.

 

[c-spand]

As 5G is not yet using the C-band reallocated frequencies in North America, I would look for other reception issues.

No, the C138 and C238 are not PLL based. As mentioned in my previous post, narrow SCPC usage is likely to be reduced with the shrinking band and we are focusing on filtered LNBF designs which provide the best interference mitigation. In our testing,, the 3800 - 4000 MHz band pass filtering works best on the non-PLL chipset builds.

The stability has been tested to be well below 1MHz (+/- 3MHz is typical in rhe market for DRO LNBFs), but we chose to spec. the max stability drift for 1MHz for premanufacturing chip sorting.

Thank you Ti.

 

[espaun206]

Hi Titanium they will continue to manufacture C1-PLL Filter ???

I do not intend to buy these new ones, they are very expensive

In addition, it seems that the C1 PLL have better stability.

 

[moonbase]

Where did Brian say it was a Pll lnbf?

He did not say it was PLL.

However, "mr3p" asked about the PLL status in the first post of this topic, my reply was relevant to his question at the time of posting.

 

[Titanium]

Hi Titanium they will continue to manufacture C1-PLL Filter ???

I do not intend to buy these new ones, they are very expensive

In addition, it seems that the C1 PLL have better stability.

We have discontinued manufacturing the C1-PLL as they will no longer be effective in attenuating adjacent frequency interference <3800MHz. This frequency change will create the majority of the market demand during the next few years. Sorry that we have lost your future business, but the cost to manufacture and import has dramatically increased in the past two years.

If the C1-PLL were to be produced today, it would retail at a price that is similar to the C138. Component and logistics cost along with the 25% tariff are affecting almost every electronic item. We had kept the C1-PLL and C2-PLL retail prices set until the stock was depleted, as they were based on our cost at the time of manufacturing.

Do you chase narrow SCPC radio channels? If so, you will benefit from the PLL stability. For most hobbyists, we listen to Radio and watch TV muxes (MCPC). With any MCPC or SCPC video service, the C138 and C238 <1MHz will provide a solid lock and the ± 50Khz stability is not needed.

 

[Captain Midnight]

We have discontinued manufacturing the C1-PLL as they will no longer be effective in attenuating adjacent frequency interference <3800MHz. This frequency change will create the majority of the market demand during the next few years. Sorry that we have lost your future business, but the cost to manufacture and import has dramatically increased in the past two years.

If the C1-PLL were to be produced today, it would retail at a price that is similar to the C138. Component and logistics cost along with the 25% tariff are affecting almost every electronic item. We had kept the C1-PLL and C2-PLL retail prices set until the stock was depleted, as they were based on our cost at the time of manufacturing.

Do you chase narrow SCPC radio channels? If so, you will benefit from the PLL stability. For most hobbyists, we listen to Radio and watch TV muxes (MCPC). With any MCPC or SCPC video service, the C138 and C238 <1MHz will provide a solid lock and the ± 50Khz stability is not needed.

People worry about stability I think because of the higher FECs and schemes like 16APSK and up. For now, I haven't had issues, but when the time comes, I'll pay the piper and upgrade with a quality Ti LNBF. People fuss over cost, but they should price out an orthomode feedhorn with 2 new narrow band LNBs...

 

[espaun206]

What are the differences better filter??

 

[primestar31]

My mistake