skywarrior
11-29-07, 06:27 PM
I have an older splitter connetcted to my CRT tv. I am in the process of hooking up a Hd tv. Is this old splitter capable of handeling digital signals or do I need a "digital splitter"?
|
View Full Version : digital splitters? skywarrior 11-29-07, 06:27 PM I have an older splitter connetcted to my CRT tv. I am in the process of hooking up a Hd tv. Is this old splitter capable of handeling digital signals or do I need a "digital splitter"? Scooper 11-29-07, 06:46 PM "digital" is the latest marketing buzzword. There ain't no such thing as a "digital splitter" nor "Digital / HDTV antenna" etc - it's all just the same old RF stuff we have been using for years on any RF issue. JHoback 11-30-07, 08:46 PM try it and see if it works. most of the time, one split isn't that big of a deal. if it is, call your cable co to have the line tested. Splicer010 11-30-07, 08:51 PM You should not have any issues as long as it is a 5-1000MHz splitter... skywarrior 12-01-07, 07:39 PM Great, thanks for the help! bicker1 12-02-07, 08:57 AM As I understand it, there are two characteristics of tuners that matter (and they may actually be the same characteristic -- someone hopefully will clarify this): (1) frequency range (generally, you want splitters rated for up to 1 GHz now), and (2) bi-directionality (cable boxes need to communicate back to the head-end, so splitters need to support transmission in the upstream direction -- though I've never seen this specifically mentioned on any of the splitters I've purchased). RCbridge 12-02-07, 09:31 AM As I understand it, there are two characteristics of tuners that matter (and they may actually be the same characteristic -- someone hopefully will clarify this): (1) frequency range (generally, you want splitters rated for up to 1 GHz now), and (2) bi-directionality (cable boxes need to communicate back to the head-end, so splitters need to support transmission in the upstream direction -- though I've never seen this specifically mentioned on any of the splitters I've purchased). Power dividers (splitters) by design are 2 way passive devices the only concern is the frequency response, it will pass any frequency (within it's range) in both directions, in the forward (divider) direction you have a passive loss through the device and the action of splitting halves the power. In the reverse (combining) direction you have the passive loss through the device. For cable 5Mhz-1Ghz is wide enough, many cable systems broadcast as high as 870mhz in the near future you may see the upper frequencies up to 1Ghz. egnlsn 12-02-07, 11:06 AM Power dividers (splitters) by design are 2 way passive devices the only concern is the frequency response, it will pass any frequency (within it's range) in both directions, in the forward (divider) direction you have a passive loss through the device and the action of splitting halves the power. Glad to see that written. However, I would change "the only concern" to "the main concern." As was written, some systems go up to 870MMHz, which means that if bandwidth is the only concern, a 900MHz splitter would suffice. Many 900MHz splitters are merely epoxied together, which is a huge source of ingress. Other specs, such as linearity, return loss, port-to-port isolation are in the toilet, and blocking capacitors are non-existent. Some don't even have a PCB -- just wires and some components soldered together. Best to stick with a major CATV manufacturer. RCbridge 12-02-07, 08:32 PM Glad to see that written. However, I would change "the only concern" to "the main concern." As was written, some systems go up to 870MMHz, which means that if bandwidth is the only concern, a 900MHz splitter would suffice. Many 900MHz splitters are merely epoxied together, which is a huge source of ingress. Other specs, such as linearity, return loss, port-to-port isolation are in the toilet, and blocking capacitors are non-existent. Some don't even have a PCB -- just wires and some components soldered together. Best to stick with a major CATV manufacturer. Agreed quality is very important!! |