FM Aerial installation Q's

Page 2 of 3  
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:44:23 +0100, Colin Blackburn

Another option could be a mast head type of amplifier, but not fitted at the mast head, then followed by a splitter. These can be powered with 12v and at a few tens of milliamps. Would that be more suitable than a mains type of device?
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hall.nospam says...

It's a possibility. There is a 12V DC supply to the house which I could utilise. Any particular name or brand I should look for?
Colin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think many normal DAs also work from a 12 volt DC supply. You'd need to take the cover off, though. ;-)
--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:05:27 +0100, Colin Blackburn

I was thinking that you could use something like a Labgear CM7274 or an Antiference UX4. These are masthead amplifiers with 4 outputs which can go directly to your sockets and can be powered over the co-ax with 12v DC. Normally they are powered from a distribution amplifier run from the mains or a separate 12v power supply like the Labgear PSM112 - these need <3W from the mains.
If you were going to run from a battery, you need a passive device that sits in one of the co-ax cables and allows you to inject 12v DC - basically the same as one of the power supply units but without the mains, rectification, smoothing and regulating pieces. I would suggest calling Labgear and Antiference and asking if they make anything like that. Another useful place is Teldis, who distribute all kinds of TV, satellite and FM distribution equipment. I found them to be pretty knowledgable on what is on the market..
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hall.nospam says...

Thanks for the names and ideas (everyone else too.) I think I will initially wire in a splitter---I get a strong signal, hell I can see Pontock Pike from the bedroom window with a pair of binoculars---then look at masthead amplifiers and possibly DAs with fancy wiring!
Cheers,
Colin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you can see the Pike from your window then don't bother with an amp a splitter will do with those sort of levels around. Don't bother with a masthead type amp as it will overload and cause more grief than what its worth!..
--
Tony Sayer


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you can use F type then do so IMHO there a better connector..

Independent connections are best but really there sod all difference unless your signals are really weak..
--
Tony Sayer


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:03:35 +0100, Colin Blackburn wrote

I was going to ask that :(
I had a look at some CT100 today and it looked like it would take the "usual" type of connector okay, but I defer to Tony Sayer's reply. I'm going to use F type connectors throughout myself except where I have to use the "usual" type such as my tuner. The F type connector seems a lot more secure to me.
--
Patrick


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you have a lot of them to do, it's worth buying the crimping tool - you can get better results with the connectors and they are cheaper as well.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well if you have strong signals then perhaps you can getaway with just passive splitting. Only real answer is to try it and see.
--
Tony Sayer


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Colin Blackburn wrote:

Makes no difference.
The problem is to achieve reflectionless splitting. In real terms this can only be done with matched resistive pads on each end of every cable,. This is totally impractical - who is goindg to put 75ohm terminators in every socket in the hose that is not in use? AND that results in losses, degrading the signal anyway.
Distrubution amplifiers isolate each cable from all the others, That's what they are there for. Use them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Er, that bit is easy. I only use one socket at a time and all the sockets are accessible. All I need to do is terminate every socket and then switch the cable to the TV for the terminator for the room I am using.

I have said elsewhere why I am not minded to use this route if at all possible. It is more impracticable for me than having a terminator in the unused sockets.
Colin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Colin Blackburn" wrote | On the general theme of aerial installations is there a reasonable | way to wire in several aerial points off one aerial without a | distribution amplifier, ie just using a splitter or splitters. | Say I want four sockets, should I split near the aerial or run | a single co-ax as far as possible before splitting? There would | only ever be one socket in use at once but I can appreciate that | long 'stubs' may cause various problems on the line as a whole.
You could just wire your aerial to one central point with a socket, have the cables to the room sockets terminating there on plugs, and plug in whichever room is required. If you have a strong signal and use good quality connectors there should be negligible effect on the signal. If, subsequently, you want to try passive splitters or a distr. amp., the cabling is already in place.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Plowman wrote:

Thats true if the front end receiver noise figure is no better than the boosters which is likley on a decent tuner.. However it is good for crap radios - as you point out - and does no harm and may overcome interference pickup in the cable if the local signals are weak.
I tried with and without a 10db booster - no audible difference ona good tuner - but the 10 db booster does at least feed the 10 coaxial cables...whereas a passive splittter to do that would have introduced significant losses.

I thimk you meant as well with, as without..
I';d say the labgear amp I am using is pretty neutral. Doesn't make it better, doesn;t make it worse. Its there to buffer and distribute not to amplify tho.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 9:43:48 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote

My clock radio is surprisingly good actually :)
If you go here:
<http://www.tivoliaudio.com/locales/gb/
and then click on the "Model 3" button on the left.
I've had it for a couple of days now and I'm becoming rather evangelical about it:)
I think it suits classical much better than rock/pop, but I listen to Radio 3 all the time so it suits me fine. There are still some classical shows on Radio 3.
Having really rather good sound quality at night is lovely. It can interfere with sex life however...
--
Patrick


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even Ravel's Bolero??
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

tooooo much information!!!
you too huh?
:)
--
dave @ stejonda

to reply by email send to 2003reply at stejonda freeuk com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

as memorably explicated by the (then) young Mr Danny Thompson acting as disreputable company to the guitar-genius and soak whose stage name is John Martyn on the "Live at Leeds" album ;-)
ob.d-i-y: well, it's a genuine *live* album, so they were "doing it themselves" (echoplex notwithstanding) rather'n all post-produced...
Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-()

So do you think this is a fairly good product? I'm looking for a good quality bedside radio and also really only listen to classical content.
I am slightly concerned that there are no technical specs given, although a lot that are published are, admittedly, somewhat meaningless.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 0:43:24 +0100, Andy Hall wrote

Yes, I am very pleased with the Tivoli clock radio. In fact I bought it at the end of a surprisingly long search when which started a few months ago when I came to the realisation that I really like good quality sound at night before going to sleep.
I had been using a Roberts R9939 for ages, which is fine for the money but really limited in terms of reproducing music with any real detail.
The Tivoli clock radio has a stereo tuner and on the back is quite a range of outputs all from 1/8 stereo jacks. There is a mono output for a subwoofer, so you could run a comprehensive sound system from it!
I do use the stereo headphones socket occasionally on it, if there is something really good on the radio, but I find the single speaker on top of the unit to be quite excellent. Having the speaker on top gives an omnidirectional output which suits bedside listening very well.
The Tivoli does not sound particularly good when absolutely brand new, it takes a few days to "run in" but over that period the sound quality continues to improve in leaps and bounds. I find sometimes at night the quality can be so good it sort of takes me by surprise. For chamber music it can be really amazing capturing nuances etc. extremely vividly.
For some time I had been considering getting a second-hand mini system on ebay, before the Tivoli clock radio was introduced just in the last couple of weeks. The problem though with the mini system idea for me is that even a mini-system is a complicated thing to have in the bedroom IMHO, and I don't know where I'd put the speakers. Also the mini systems I've heard tend to be fine for rock/pop, but for classical the Tivoli is hugely superior I think.
Other things I looked at were the Pure radios and the Bose Acoustiwave. The Bose is lovely to look at but far too expensive, and I can't see the point in stereo by the bedside. I prefer the upward facing omnidirectional Tivoli. The Bose might be very good in a small office situation or something. The Pure radios didn't offer me very much because I don't feel any desire for the DAB stations.
--
Patrick


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.