Does anyone know what the published specs are for the Winegard SD-3300 combiner? Just curious...I am using one to eliminate two baluns and a combiner and hopefully gain some signal.

the sd-3300 is discontinued. sd3700 is current.

insertion loss is about 3.5db like a regular 2 way splitter/combiner. there are probably better alternatives out there.

which antennas are you trying to combine.

Ok what are the loss numbers for the sd3700? I have an XG91 & unknown VHF antenna to combine.

use the cm0549 combiner. $8.74 plus frt.

order one today and you should receive it by wednesday.

http://www.warrenelectronics.com/Antennas/joiners.htm

.5 db insertion loss and 30 db isolation between ports. I use a ton of them.

I combined the hd8200p with a 91 xg at home and it works perfectly.

Wow, pretty impressive loss numbers...but to use that I would have to use two baluns and they have some loss...wouldn't it be better to use a model that accepts 300 ohm inputs and has 75 ohm output.

I would still like to know where I can find the specs for the sd3300 or sd3700.

the 91xg does not use a balun/matching transformer.

the winegard ya1710 vhf antenna, hd4053p, etc. does not use a matching transformer either. They are a 75 ohm antennas like the other winegard hd series antennas.

that is one of the reasons I like them so much.

I would not loose much sleep over using a balun anyways.

what are you using for an amp?

The 91XG does use a balun/matching transformer. It might say a printed circuit board transformer, but if you open the matching box it is only a common balun. My VHF reception is ok as is. The preamp is: winegard 8780 (17db VHF NF 2.9, 28db UHF NF 2.7)

see model UV3...300 ohm

UV-7 - split or combine VHF and UHF bands ( 0 - 230 MHz and 470 - 860 MHz )

UV-3 - same as above 300 ohms inputs

http://www.tinlee.com/MATV_headend.htm

Combining different antennas will result in a -3.5 dB average loss with the sd3700. The sd3700 is a full channel antenna combiner and is intended to combine two broadband antennas and does not fit your application of combining a uhf antenna with a vhf antenna.

The vhf/uhf splitter/combiners because they isolate the vhf/uhf bands have less loss (.5 db).

Also take a look at this one

it is cheaper than the cm0549. Wow 98 cents!

http://www.gigaweb.com/product_info.php?products_id=17435&osCsid=6a741b13d8fc19e9f2288d1d0f5d275e

you can combine the uhf and vhf antennas in the cm7777.

if you want to cut down on losses (if you have longer runs) try rg11.

http://www.mjsales.net/items.asp?FamilyID=190&this_Cat1ID=266&Cat2ID=34&Cat3ID=18

Thanks for the info Rick0725...I just ordered the cm0549...since I installed the SD-3300 my UHF reception has dropped which supports what you said about it having high db loss...I do need to install RG-11...it is expensive...I saw the Commscope RG-11 in the link you provided but saw that the center conductor is copper-coated-steel and not bare copper...I thought I saw in the forum somewhere that CCS was not good and to look for BC (bare copper)?

I spent the last hour researching rg-11. It appears that many RG-11 are solid copper clad steel. The solid copper have close loss specs but costs a fortune.

I found some Belden 1523A rg-11 with 4.23 db loss/100' at 1000 mhz. The lowest loss of about a dozen varieties I researched.

http://www.sadoun.com/Sat/Products/BELDEN/Belden+1523AC.htm

Here are the specs from belden

http://bwccat.belden.com/ecat/jsp/Index.jsp

The solid copper rg11 had loss of 4.30db/100ft vs 4.23db/100ft.

I like these connectors. PPC rg11 compression connector. The PPC plant and sales dept. is about 6 miles from my home.

http://www.dbs-online.com/items.asp?FamilyID=520&this_Cat1ID=270&Cat2ID=88

And this is good stuff to waterproof the inside of the connectors...its called STUF.

http://www.dbs-online.com/items.asp?FamilyID=503

And this was a good catch by the way. going to order 3 of them tomorrow and give it a try. I like the low noise and and variable gain. SWEET! The ResearchComms preamp had too much gain for my application at home.

http://www.kitztech.com

I am going to upgrade my antenna system in a couple weeks.
-replacing the rotor, thrust bearing, and cable
-installing my 91xg on top and the hd8200p on the bottom.
-running rg-11 from the antennas to the grounding block with rg6 dual shield inside.
-install my 3 new kitzteck 1 db noise amps
-get me a tube of STUF.

Kitztech. Great catch and can not wait to try them out. might even get 3!

1DB Noise Figure
Adjustible gain of 0-20DB.

Ah, but the Winegard CS-7750 VHF/UHF Separator/Coupler has .3 db insertion loss! And is a nice blue color that matches my blue colored BlueJeans coax (Belden 1694, Canare connector) cable. My system is color co-ordinated.

Ah, but the Winegard CS-7750 VHF/UHF Separator/Coupler has .3 db insertion loss! And is a nice blue color that matches my blue colored BlueJeans coax (Belden 1694, Canare connector) cable. My system is color co-ordinated.

I use the winegard ca8800's to separate fm from the tv signal with .4 db loss. I forgot about the cs-7750's.

Ordered one of the cs7750's tonight too!

install my 3 new kitzteck 1 db noise amps

Rick, I'm curious. How are you going to use the Kitztech? My antenna is in the attic and I have a power outlet in the attic. So I can power my Kitztech there. Aren't your antennas outside? How are you going to power the Kitztech outdoors? Its power module doesn't connect to the preamp via coax.

The amps are going to be installed inside as distribution amps.

My preamps are currently installed at the grounding block outside. The preamps overloaded at the antenna and to be honest worked best indoors at the distribution point. The Kitztech amps will be perfect.

1 db noise figure and adjustable gain...SWEET!

The CS-7750 looks like it is meant for indoor use? Also can someone enlighten me as to the difference between Belden 1523A, 1523AP & 1523R?

you would need 1523A

1523A= general purpose cable

1523AP = Plenum cable

PLENUM CABLES - Type CATVP (coaxial) and Type CATVP-OF (coaxial/optical-fiber). These cables are for installation as specified in Section 820.51(A) of the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70 in a duct, plenum, or other space used to transport environmental air without the cable being enclosed in raceway in that space.

1523R=Riser cable

RISER CABLES - Type CATVR (coaxial) and Type CATVR-OF (coaxial/optical-fiber). These cables are for installation as specified in Section 820.51(B) of the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70 in vertical runs in a shaft or for vertical runs that penetrate more than one floor.

Ok, I installed the cm0549 to combine my XG91 & VHF antennas...also upgraded to RG11 (240' run)...signal strength is MUCH improved!...I can now receive digital from ~85 miles during the day with no pixelation...before I could not receive those stations at all during the day...many thanks to all of you!! I have learned much!

Published, decimal insertion loss values of virtually identical passive components are meaningless for the purpose of selecting one over another. The loss varies depending on the frequency, and the loss will vary with the exactness with which the actual impedance of the load formed by the passive device and the load components matches the exact real impedance of the source device.

Why does Jesse31 think that reducing the insertion loss by a couple tenths of a dB is important in his situation?

jessie used an appropriate vhf/uhf antenna combiner, rg11 to cut down the losses on a 240' run, and his signal improved. what is wrong with that?

or are you talking about the losses of the various vhf/uhf antenna combiners in the market place (which are in the same ballpark)

I was referring to the comparisons of published insertion loss figures of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 dB for passive baluns and combiners. I once took a couple of baluns that had a published insertion loss figure of 1 dB and connected them back to back, and the combined insertion losses varied from less than 0.5 to as much as 4dB at different UHF frequencies. Other comparable baluns will fluctuate similarly, but peaking and cresting at differnt frequencies.

AntAltMike...have you read the entire thread?..I was combining the antennas with a sd-3300 and switched to a cm0549 and you are saying that I reduced the insertion loss by only a couple tenths of a dB?

AntAltMike...have you read the entire thread?..I was combining the antennas with a sd-3300 and switched to a cm0549 and you are saying that I reduced the insertion loss by only a couple tenths of a dB?

Having read a number of these threads on power splitters and seeing your question confirms my suspicion that there is a lot of confusion here.

Nowhere in this thread did anyone say you started with a power splitter and went to a diplexer. These are two different animals.

A power splitter is fine for combining two identical antennas (stacking) but is not fine for combining two different antennas, like VHF and UHF. That's the job of a diplexer.

A 3 dB power splitter is simply a broadband impedance transformer that goes from 75 ohms to 37.5 ohms. Two 75 ohm loads in parallel is 37.5 ohms which is the impedance of two identical antennas connected together. When used as a splitter the minimum loss is 3 dB - half the power goes to each port. Anything above 3 dB are inefficiencies in the circuit and I would refer to as Insertion Loss. If each port measured -3.5 dB, then the total gain of two antennas would be 2.5 dB, not the theoretical 3 dB.

If one company says their splitter is 3.5 dB loss and a second says theirs is 0.5 dB loss, it's very likely that they're exactly the same. The second assumes that you know that 3 dB is the definition of splitting the power in two.

A diplexer is a device with two bandpass filters in it (or maybe a low pass and a high pass filter). In our case with separate VHF and UHF antennas, one filter needs to pass from 54 to 216 MHz with low loss and the other from 470 to 800 MHz with low loss. There's no impedance transformation necessary since the antennas never appear to be in parallel at the same frequency. There is no power splitting loss, only insertion loss. Good isolation between ports prevents one antenna from affecting the other.

In your case you picked up 3 dB going from a splitter to a diplexer to combine different antennas (assuming equal losses in each device) and you reduced the potential for one antenna interfering with the other due to lack of isolation. You also picked up about 3.5 dB at channel 60 with 240' of cable by switching from RG-6 to RG-11.

I hope this make some sense.

Why does Jesse31 think that reducing the insertion loss by a couple tenths of a dB is important in his situation?

So AntAltMike thinks that the difference between the SD-3300 and the CM-0549 is only a couple tenths of a dB?? Wrong.

The Winegard SD-3300 I was using is meant to be used for combining identical antennas...it had a large loss...when I switched to the cm0549 my signal picked up a great amount...The cm0549 was a better choice and apparently has much less loss...after switching to RG11 signal improved greatly again. AntAltMike's comment was offbase and it was apparent that he had not read the entire thread....The bottom line is I have a terrific signal now thanks to some knowledgeable helpful people....and as Mr. Gump said: "Thats all I have to say about that."