..along with all the distorted signals due to typical phase cancellations and other gremlins that often occur in such a "joining" of like-band antennas ...

The topic of combining antennas has been thoroughly discussed in the thread Stacking, Ganging, Combining TV Antennas (http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=95148). Please read over that thread and move the discussion there.

Motivated by Adtech's comment about a Winegard splitter in this thread.
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1261471&postcount=18

Wanted to see if I could measure the loss of a Radio Shack 2 way splitter I had in the junk bin. I came up with a loss of 4 dB at CH 69 (800 MHz). Not bad considering the bad rep R/S has and all.
The one I tested says
ARCHER
2 Set UHF/VHF/FM
Hybrid Splitter / Combiner

Here's what I did. Mother in law used to have Satellite till they moved to a new place a couple years ago. They had an Echostar DVR-625 rcvr that she gave me when they moved, since they don't have satellite any more. I never played with it until today and it turns out that receiver has 2 RF Modulators in it.

TV1 CH 3 or 4 60 - 72 Mhz
TV2
-Air 21-69 512 - 806 Mhz
-Cable 73-125

Set the TV2 modulator to CH 69, and plug in to the Comm test set, measures -47 dBm. Insert the two way splitter, with port 1 going to a TV, and port 2 going to the comm test set. Comm test set now measures -51 dBm, for a net insertion loss of 4 dB on CH 69 for the supposedly crappy R/S Splitter.
Same test using an ARCHER 4 Way Splitter and I measure 10 dB insertion loss (-57 dBm on any of the 4 outputs)
Not too useful as a satellite receiver since I don't subscribe to satellite, but makes a great NTSC signal generator:)
I'll bet Bell sells the same receiver.

I purchased one from Save n Replay and was wondering if this model of splitter is DC power passive on all ports.
I think it is, but would like some kind of confirmation.

The Solid Signal website states "No Power Pass" for the 3214.

indeed, it is not, just found a PDF file for that model. Capacitor blocks are installed on that model. Thanks

ChannelMaster does not offer any splitter that is "DC-Pass" on any port. They are "DC Blocking" on all ports.

I just ordered a Skywalker brand 4-way splitter that does pass power on all ports. Thanks for your help.

Be careful that none of your loads have an input that represents a DC short to the input F-connector. If you happen to have one of those, that receiver will short the DC power to ground and cause a system failure.

An easy way to avoid that problem is to put a DC block on the ports you don't want power. I think I still have a bunch in the basement if you have troubles finding one.

Easier to just buy the correct part in the first place....

I got the SD3700 300 ohm in, 75 ohm out outdoor antenna coupler today. So heres a mini review.

The Box:
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1788/theboxb.jpg

The Package Contents:
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7022/packagecontents.jpg

The shipment from Solid Signal was very quick, as was my previous order with them about 2 years ago for the CM0264 preamp. Even though I paid for USPS shipping, they sent it FedEx 2 day.

The Connection end:
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1467/connections.jpg

And the inside layout :
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9017/insidelayout.jpg

Those resistors look to be 330 ohm, 1/4 watt, 5% tolerance.
Ill have to break out the digital microscope to look at the lettering on those 5 capacitors. The solder connections look good. And on the underside (not seen), the leads are bent over and kept short, following good RF wiring practices. Also on the underside, there are two or three quality control ink stamps, meaning that the piece was probably tested and the coils adjusted.

This unit should provide less loss for joining two 300 ohm antennas than the 2 balun and a splitter used as a coupler method.

It will be quite some time before I get a chance to compare its performance versus the phasing lines on a DBGH.

my shipment from Solid Signal arrived today. I ordered it on Monday. Pretty good turn around.
Skywalker 4 way splitter with DC blockers for 3 of the outputs. Nice little splitter.

Nice photos 300ohm. It would be interesting to see a schematic for that combiner to see what method they use to combine the signals. While you won't avoid the reflections that account for the majority of the signal loss, it could easily prevent a lot of the connector loss. As I am sure you are aware, special precautions need to be made when dealing with 300 Ohm twin lead.

It would be interesting to see a schematic
Yeah, Im going to work on that. Those coils are a lot more complicated than they look. In the picture above, it looks like they have 4 leads out each. In reality, they all have 6, two are hidden under the ferrite cores. Also, that coil near the F connector has unconnected (with the coil) copper/lead pads underneath the ferrite core that are part of the circuit.

As I am sure you are aware, special precautions need to be made when dealing with 300 Ohm twin lead.
Thats another unusual thing about the directions. They state under step 4 :
Note: When coupling identical antennas, pointed in the same direction, DO NOT TWIST TWINLEAD BETWEEN ANTENNA DOWNLEAD TERMI-NALS AND COUPLER.

http://www.winegard.com/kbase/upload/2451096.pdf

And why hyphenate the word terminals ?, heh. :p

Hmm, the included FC-5910 crimp on connector is for RG-59.
The included Ubolt is for up to 1 1/2" OD mast.

to see what method they use to combine the signals.
The patent describes that nicely in detail :

patent 3373361 here : http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl

The coil on the left looks like figure 3 in the patent, which includes coil #33 and 34 in figure 2. Coil 21 in figure 2 must be 1/2 of the middle coil in the picture, the other half being part of the (4:1 or 2:1 / 1:2 ??) internal balun circuit.
The dimensions of the ferrite core 30, are NOT 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/4" as described in the patent, but rather 1/2" X 1/4" X 1/4" with approx 1/8" diameter holes. Same goes for the ferrite coil near the F connector. The ferrite core of the middle coil is about 3/8" X 1/8" in diameter.
Reading through the patent, it sounds like a cleaver little device.

Another interesting patent, cited in the above patent, is 3226724 for coupling 4 antennas together.

While you won't avoid the reflections that account for the majority of the signal loss
Looking over what it does in the patent, thats exactly what its attempting to overcome.

Figure 3 coil, looks to be the key item to avoid conflicting currents, and it looks like its not that frequency dependent, being an 82 channel device (Someone tell me if Im wrong, please), so it may be an item a DIYer may attempt to build. (along with a 2:1 balun to reduce 150 ohms to 75 ohms) All youre doing is winding two close simple transformers in opposite directions, heh.
Figure 4 explains the operation of the figure 3 coil.

But like I noted before, it will be quite some time before I get a chance to compare its performance versus the phasing lines on a DBGH.

The proof will be in the pudding, heh. The few reviews, 3 at this time at Solid Signal that there are, seem to be very positive. (why would someone trying to join two 75 ohm antennas together use this product and give it a 3 ?, heh. Other than him, the score is 4.5 out of 5)
So whether this is a good thing or a poor thing, I do want to know the "why" of it. (all the solder connections on my unit look great, so it should perform to spec, unless the capacitors, which I cant measure, are bad)
Nice photos 300ohm.
Fairly inexpensive Nikon L15 Coolpix 8 MP I got a few years ago, along with a 3 year extra extended warranty, so basically a 4 year warranty. Just waiting for it to screw up before claiming the warranty and upgrading, heh. Its been very reliable so far, darn it.
And oh yeah, I use PIXresizor, a free utility, to resize the photos for this forum. It does a very decent job.

I think the instructions not to twist the twinlead are to prevent the antennas from being 180 degrees out of phase and cancel each other out. As for hyphenating terminals, I am sure it is a typo. maybe they were wanting to hyphenate twinlead and did the wrong word by mistake. ;)

As for hyphenating terminals, I am sure it is a typo.
Yeah, I think its a typo too. Just typical of the many typos we have to endure nowadays. My question is, cant companies pass around the literature/directions to a least a few people to proofread to avoid crappy mistakes ? It doesnt seem like a difficult problem to overcome, heck even in China.

I think the instructions not to twist the twinlead are to prevent the antennas from being 180 degrees out of phase and cancel each other out.
Yes, I agree too, somewhat. What really would be the polarity in twin lead, it changes. But would it be so hard to state that purpose in the directions ? Its not that big of a deal vertically stacking, but in horizontal stacking, the twin lead would act as a resonant radiant surface unless twisted.

I'm considering getting a Kitztech amp to use as a pre-amp, and since it doesn't have an FM trap built-in, I figure I should block the low frequencies I don't care about.

After doing my research, I'm conflicted between the idea of getting a HLSJ, which apparently has in the range of 0.5db insertion loss, and a Tin Lee High pass filter like the HP7-108 / 115, which they say has < 1.5 db passband loss. The whole point of getting the Kitztech amp will be to pull in some fringe signals (like ION), so I don't want to attenuate unnecessarily.

Does anyone have any experience choosing between these two? Would an HLSJ with a terminator on the "Lo" side be good enough, or should I go all the way to the Tin Lee?