But are those the *real* channel numbers?

As opposed to the fake/virtual numbers the industry uses to confuse everyone. I'm totally convinced that the cable companies sabotaged OTA DTV by getting that stupid "feature" added to the spec. Ugh.
yes, these are the real numbers.

Okay. Somehow, I suspect you have a *LOT* more channels coming in than just those three.

But fine, if that's all you want, then the solution is almost trivial.

11 is a VHF channel, and wants a much larger antenna than 14 & 18, which are UHF channels.

If your existing antenna is UHF, then it is already attenuating 11 for you, so just adding a pre-amp will probably be totally fine.

If you want to get fancier, you could put up a simple VHF antenna (dipole), or something fancier, for channel 11, with no pre-amp. And put a pre-amp on your UHF antenna. The two antennas can be combined with zero interference using a simple ($2) UVSJ band combiner (looks like a splitter, but works differently).

Cheers

I need a good, very good quality 3-way splitter, what characteristics should I look for, the loss is not always indicated and apparently the qualities vary, including insulation, welded casing, frequency ranges etc...

I know Videotron for cable service gives the Antronix ones, which on the website of course sounds like gold...but what about you folks with your experience and measurements...

When I asked the guy at the very well known Montreal east end antenna shop, he said don't worry we sell good quality ones come and see, when I asked the maker, he couldn't give a straight answer, also when I asked how he knew they were good quality without any loss figures or other data documenting, he said he just knew because they sell a lot of them! wow, that's scary!

thanks for suggestions

I need a good, very good quality 3-way splitter, what characteristics should I look for, the loss is not always indicated and apparently the qualities vary, including insulation, welded casing, frequency ranges etc...


I assume this is for VHF/UHF TV signals. All splitters that claim to be for TV should cover the entire TV spectrum and be 75 Ohm with 'F' connectors. For professional L-Band satellite systems at work we use 50 Ohm MiniCircuits parts with SMA connectors. The only 75 Ohm splitters I could find had BNC connectors. In any case, they're like $80 each. I have found consumer grade Regal splitters well made. They have the frequency range and total loss figure stamped or printed on the part. I'm holding a Regal 2-way splitter in my hand that indicates 5-1000 Mhz -3.5dB at each output. The -3dB we expect, the -0.5dB insertion loss within the device is pretty good considering that those are close to the specs that I see in the MiniCircuits catalog for their splitters. Anything less than 1dB insertion loss is considered O.K. For a 3-way splitter you would look for -5.5dB at each output ( assuming -0.5dB insertion loss ).

Techluvr:

Actually it will used for VHF-UHF TV Antenna and/or Digital Cable TV service (QAM shows 450-780 MHz)...

For the 3 way-splitters, I've only seen -7.5dB on 2 outputs, and -3.5dB on the 3rd output....???

If figures are not written on the splitter, or elsewhere, should I just stay away!

And where can I find the Regals you speak of (Montreal)....


thanks

I have a couple of regal splitters, they were used by Videotron. Physically, they seem to be of high quality, the body is solid, sealed and the numbers are stamped on the body. I am not sure why to buy it though other than ebay (saw several listings there)

Techluvr:

Actually it will used for VHF-UHF TV Antenna and/or Digital Cable TV service (QAM shows 450-780 MHz)...

For the 3 way-splitters, I've only seen -7.5dB on 2 outputs, and -3.5dB on the 3rd output....???

If figures are not written on the splitter, or elsewhere, should I just stay away!

And where can I find the Regals you speak of (Montreal)....


thanks

The 5Mhz to 1000Mhz parts cover everything you're looking for.

I haven't seen splitters that have different figures for each output; I've only seen couplers like that, so I'm stumped by that. That almost sounds like internally it's actually two 2-way splitters cascaded, yuch!

I would stay away from any electronic component that didn't disclose its characteristics. It might be written on the package, but I prefer it to be stamped or labeled on the part itself so that in a few years when I find it in my misc. parts box I can instantly know what it is.

I think these Regal splitters I have were left here by a Rogers cable installer back in the days when I had cable. I'm not sure where they are sold in retail stores, but I'm sure if you Google "Regal and Splitter" you'll find lots of places to on-line order.

Here is the Regal splitter I have, it is a 3-1 splitter. On one port it says 3.5 dB and the other two it says 7 dB each so internally, it must be 2 x 2:1 in cascade

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/picture.php?albumid=85&pictureid=621

Here is the Regal splitter I have, it is a 3-1 splitter. On one port it says 3.5 dB and the other two it says 7 dB each so internally, it must be 2 x 2:1 in cascade



Yeah, I guess there's a valid reason to have a low loss port and 2 higher attenuated ports if your source signal is very strong. Maybe if you have a cable modem and 2 TVs; you want to give the modem the low-loss port. In the case of distributing TV to multiple sets I would look for a 'balanced' splitter. Look at the Regal DSB3DGH10; it has 3 outputs at -5.5dB.

could you explain what cascade means...

I thought the 7,7,3.5 meant 2 branches get 40% each of the signal, and one branch gets 20% of the signal (i guess incl. insertion loss)...am I wrong?

Also is not better to have the 7,7,3.5 if you favor optimizing the signal on 1 receiver in particular over the other 2, instead of the 5.5,5.5,5.5, which I assume is 33% signal equally to all 3 receivers...

could you explain what cascade means...

Cascade or maybe 'stack' means to take the output of one splitter and make it the input of another splitter. In our 3-way example, the source signal comes to the input of the 1st 2-way splitter. One of the outputs @ -3.5dB goes directly to equipment. The other output @ -3.5dB goes to the input of a second 2-way splitter. The outputs of the 2nd splitter are now @-7dB relative to the original source.


I thought the 7,7,3.5 meant 2 branches get 40% each of the signal, and one branch gets 20% of the signal (i guess incl. insertion loss)...am I wrong?

Think of it more like one output gets 50% the signal, the other two outputs each get 25%.



Also is not better to have the 7,7,3.5 if you favor optimizing the signal on 1 receiver in particular over the other 2, instead of the 5.5,5.5,5.5, which I assume is 33% signal equally to all 3 receivers...

Yes, if that's what you want. You should understand your requirements before choosing components. In the previous example of cable TV with a broadband modem, you would want to put the modem close to the splitter and give it the -3.5dB output. Since there's oodles of power in the cable { I'm not sure the exact dBm measurement of an 'oodle' } the 7dB attenuation on the other outputs would probably not degrade the TV signals. If you don't have a cable modem, maybe one of your TVs is on a very long coax cable compared to the other two TVs; give it the -3.5dB output.


I hope this helps and not just adds more confusion :)

could you explain what cascade means...

Cascade means putting them in series. It is the same as using two 2-1 splitters and having one on one of the outputs of the other, although it is all done internally so there is less loss from connectors.

I thought the 7,7,3.5 meant 2 branches get 40% each of the signal, and one branch gets 20% of the signal (i guess incl. insertion loss)...am I wrong?

With that type of splitter, you will get 50% (half) of the signal on the 3.5dB port and 25% of the signal on the two 7dB ports ignoring insertion loss (or 45% and 20% respectively including the insertion loss).

Also is not better to have the 7,7,3.5 if you favor optimizing the signal on 1 receiver in particular over the other 2, instead of the 5.5,5.5,5.5, which I assume is 33% signal equally to all 3 receivers...

True. If you want one port to have a better signal for some reason the 7,7,3.5 splitter is better but if you want equal signal levels on all outputs the 5.5,5.5,5.5 splitter is better. FYI, including IL, you are getting 28% of the signal on each output.

Helloooooooo roger1818.. Is there an echo in here? :D :D

I'm glad you agree. I was so careful to fact-check.

LOL Yes there is an echo in here. ;)
LOL Yes there is an echo in here. ;)

OOOOOOOOK... I am that much smarter now! Thank you...

Splitters can be used in an opposite format to join two antenna feeds.

Channel Master sells a coupler to do this also.

In terms of signal loss, does it matter if one uses the reverse splitter or coupler? Is the coupler better- less signal loss?

I'm switching from cable to OTA DTV, and wanted to see how inexpensively I could do it. I therefore bought a cheap Terk TV1 antenna, plugged it into a DTV converter box, and scanned for channels. To my surprise, I was able to pick up about 20 unique digital channels. So I'm definitely sold.

If it is at all possible, I would like to put these rabbit ears in the room where they work best, and then have every tv in the house (3 total) share the signal that's coming from it. The room that gets the best signal, however, doesn't have a coaxial cable jack. SInce I'm not very handy, I therefore need to hire someone to install the cable jack in that room.

Before I pay for that, however, I wanted to make sure that my plan was really possible. Is it really just as simple as plugging the antenna into a splitter, and then plugging the connected cables into my TV's? Should I worry about signal strength? Is there something else that I'm missing?

If you're wondering why I don't just test this myself without putting a hole in my wall, it's because I only have one DTV converter right now. I would rather wait and see how this works out before I shell out another ~$120.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Tom Purl

That antenna is not amplified so splitting will likely yield poor results. I've seen better, amplified antennas for about the same price as the Terk TV1. You might want to check local surplus stores. An amplified, directional antenna would likely yield even better results as long as most/weaker channels are in the same direction. Antenna recommendations have already been discussed in other threads.

I can pretty much guarantee that splitting your indoor antenna and using long cable runs will kill your 20 channel reception.
Maybe 5 or so of the strong ones if you're lucky.

You didn't say your situation - if you're in an apt or condo, i guess you're SOL, but if you're in a house and going to through the trouble of wiring for coax, you might as well put up an outdoor antenna while you're at it ;)

I can pretty much guarantee that splitting your indoor antenna and using long cable runs will kill your 20 channel reception. Maybe 5 or so of the strong ones if you're lucky.

Would an amplified splitter help me at all?

You didn't say your situation - if you're in an apt or condo, i guess you're SOL, but if you're in a house and going to through the trouble of wiring for coax, you might as well put up an outdoor antenna while you're at it.

I'm lucky enough to be in a house. How does putting up an outdoor antenna help though? Won't I still have the same problems, considering that the an outdoor antenna would also probably be passive?