Most sensitive receiver?

[vondertrenk]

I have heard that the AZ box is the most sensitive receiver. Is it true?

[Kraven]

Hard to tell as I dont think the majority here have more 2 or 3 receivers to compare. Someone in another thread mentioned the Manhattan (spelling?) as having a very good tuner.

I have an S10 and a V2000 (picked up on craigslist for 20$). Both tuners are reasonably simillar.

However, I would assume though a USB/PCI/PCI-e based card would be better due to the processing power of the PC behind it, but am just speculating. Perhaps MT can give his opinion?

Cheers, K

[ScaryBob]

due to the processing power of the PC behind it

That has nothing to do with sensitivity. Receiver sensitivity is solely dependent on the quality and design of the front end RF chips (amplifier and RF demodulator.) However, OTA receivers depend heavily on processing done by the LNB. The components that most determine FTA sensitivity are dish size, dish design and LNB quality. If higher sensitivity is required, LNB quality is probably more important than the receiver.

[vondertrenk]

True, sensitivity is given either in dBuV, dBW, dBm or microvolts. it is the threshold value for decent reception. The higher the number, the worst the sensitivity. A eceiver with 40 uVolts sensitivity will have better reception that a receiver with 60 uVolts sinsitivity.

I have been checking some receiver specs but so far non of them mention the sensitivity parameter.

My curiosity is based in the fact that when I tested a pansat and an Openbox, the second unit showed a higher quality number. Of course this is ever more complex because there are more elements to quality rather than sensitivity like Bit Error Rate (BER), however, sensitivity is still quite important. A more sensitive receiver will make the difference in some of those channels with marginal singal in your area.

As a matter of fact I was able to get some more channels with one receiver than with the other, even though the Pansat let you do a manual search of the lost channel ( PID, etc)

I wonder if somebody has seen a table comparing these technical charachteristics. If you check the Tele-Satellite magazine ( sorry I am new to the forum, can I mention this magazine?) there is an article about the AZ Box and how ultra sensible it is. How can this be measured and compared with other boxes?

[cyberham]

You can't compare SQ (quality) readings between receiver models, or even between receivers of the same model probably. These readings between models are not calibrated to a standard. It's known that Coolsat, for example, made their readings high for a marketing purpose (makes their box seem to be better). The purpose of the quality readings are for dish orientation and will only tell you if one signal is relatively stronger or weaker compared with another being received on the same box.

I think Dr. Sat's comment regarding the sensitivity of the LNB is more significant. The blind scan capability of the receiver is important too but that capability is more related to the algorithm used to do a scan than the receiver's actual sensitivity.

[vondertrenk]

I did not meant the list comparing the QUality of every receiver, itg is clear that this is pretty subjective based in many parameters.

I was looking for a comparison of the receivers sensitivity. If a blind scan is a ble to discover the same ch in the fringe area for say, tow different receivers, the receiver with more sensitivity will may be able to show it better.

[tanka]

I have azbox premium plus openbox s9 .The most are simple the vantage vt1 and vantage 1100hd amaizing feed hunters

[majortom]

In my experience, I don't think "receiver sensitivity" is the limiting factor in a satellite system, so it's not worth getting hung up about. If I can receive a signal on one receiver, all other factors being equal (i.e. same antenna), I can receive it on the other.

The ability to "blindscan" a signal has nothing to do with receiver sensitivity.
If ya wanna get hung up about something, get hung up on improving your antenna system.
Most bang for the buck.

[ogorek]

If ya wanna get hung up about something, get hung up on improving your antenna system.
Most bang for the buck.

Very true. Recently I replaced Fortec Lifetime Classic NA with Viewsat Ultra V2000 which I picked up like new for $5.00 at a garage sale. I was thinking that Viewsat will be better as it is newer, with stronger processor, more memory, better tuner. Not true. The picture quality on the old Fortec is the same if not better, the menus are better. The Fortec Classic NA is going back as the main receiver.

[tanka]

sensitive very important for s2 feed hunters the azbox very good but my vantages are better az breaking picture on same feeds vantage the same feed picture perfect

[tdti1]

True sensitivity can help if you have el chepo lnb's/lnbf or a undersized dish or both, and for some people that have been saying they will retune there dish for the past 2 years but have not done so hahaha. This year for sure

[ChannelMaster]

In my experience, I tried Coolsats 5K and 6K, Vewsat 2000, a Pansat, Sonicviews Elite, 4000 and 8000HD and so far, the SV4000 is the one locking on the lowest bargraph as well as being the one reacting the quickest to dish movement. But of course, I'm talking DVB-S. So...