I am thinking of getting an FM filter from RadioShack to see if it may help with reception of distant channels. But do you install the filter before the preamp at the antenna, or before the power supply closer to the TV? I am in zip code 29607 in Greenville, SC, and apparently there are some strong FM towers nearby. But I still get some Charlotte, NC channels from 75 miles no problem, but I just wonder if the FM filter would make a difference on some other weak, distant channels. So where is the proper place to install the FM filter?
FM Filter
1 - 20 of 134 Posts
Joined
·
16,678 Posts
What I did is install the signal separator at the base of the antenna where the cable snakes underneath the eaves of the house. At that point, the FM goes via a separate cable to my receiver and the OTA signal goes, via RG-6 to the garage where the drop amp is located. About a 150' run. FM is perfect and OTA is the same. However, the antenna is on the roof at about 30' from ground.
Joined
·
3,282 Posts
He's trying to trap out FM, not separate it.
The FM trap belongs between the antenna and the amplifier, nowhere else, if you are trying to prevent FM interference with TV reception. FM interference is most common on VHF channels 4-13. It rarely affects UHF reception.
The FM trap belongs between the antenna and the amplifier, nowhere else, if you are trying to prevent FM interference with TV reception. FM interference is most common on VHF channels 4-13. It rarely affects UHF reception.
Agreed on the placement of the filter. Utilizing an FM/TV separator would do the same thing. You just terminate the FM port. A filter attenuates the FM band while doing nothing to the surrounding frequencies, while an FM/TV separator pulls the FM band out of the bandwidth and sends it out the FM port.
Joined
·
3,993 Posts
The only TV/FM separators I ever checked out had really weak attenuation of the FM on the TV/thru line, like under 10 dB, so such a device would surely be inferior to any inline 88-108 reject filter.
Joined
·
16,678 Posts
Ok. So either one would work in his case, a filter or a separator, with a good filter being the preferred device if he wants to eliminate the FM all together and not shunt it off to a receiver. FWIW, the signal separator works very well for us. None of our VHF HDTV stations are affected. Reception is solid and reliable. Thanks for the clarification of a filter and separator.
Where you put the FM filter (trap) depends on your situation. If your preamp can handle all of the signal it is receiving without clipping, but your tuner can not, it may be better to put the trap after the preamp. Any kind of filter has some insertion loss: the amount it attenuates the signal you want to keep. All preamp have some fixed input noise. The first preamp in the system usually sets the signal to noise ratio of the whole system (unless later amplifiers are really bad). If the preamp can handle the signal without clipping, putting the trap after the preamp will have a better signal to noise ratio. If the signal is causing clipping in the preamp, the trap must be before the preamp.
Also, there are two kinds of FM filter, and the people who sell them seldom tell you which you are getting. One type kills all of the FM, but since channel 6 is really close to FM frequencies, it kills channel 6 too. The other type tries to keep channel 6, but then lets quite a bit of the low end FM. About the only way to tell what you are getting if you don't have a channel 6 in your area is with a network analyzer.
I have FM traps in my antenna lines because the FM signals in my area are 100 times as strong as the TV signals I'm trying to receive (40 dB). The ones I have kill channel 6, but they allow me to receive channel 7 without breakups.
Also, there are two kinds of FM filter, and the people who sell them seldom tell you which you are getting. One type kills all of the FM, but since channel 6 is really close to FM frequencies, it kills channel 6 too. The other type tries to keep channel 6, but then lets quite a bit of the low end FM. About the only way to tell what you are getting if you don't have a channel 6 in your area is with a network analyzer.
I have FM traps in my antenna lines because the FM signals in my area are 100 times as strong as the TV signals I'm trying to receive (40 dB). The ones I have kill channel 6, but they allow me to receive channel 7 without breakups.
Joined
·
16,678 Posts
Interesting. As stated above, I just have an old Winegard Signal Separator splitting the FM to my receiver in the living room. Channel 7 comes in just fine with no issues at all in the family room where the HDTV is. Is there even a Channel 6 in our area? I see we both live in San Jose but probably in different areas. FM reception is great but they're being pulled in from an antenna that's about 30' from ground level.
Interesting. As stated above, I just have an old Winegard Signal Separator splitting the FM to my receiver in the living room. Channel 7 comes in just fine with no issues at all in the family room where the HDTV is. Is there even a Channel 6 in our area? I see we both live in San Jose but probably in different areas. FM reception is great but they're being pulled in from an antenna that's about 30' from ground level.
There is a low power analog channel on channel 6 broadcasting from Loma Prieta: KBFK-LP. Most of my tuners are digital only, and the one that is capable of analog does not get this station due to the FM traps I'm using.
I'm on a hillside an 500' altitude with my antenna 30' above ground. My 44 mile line of site to Sutro passes over San Jose, and there are many FM towers between here and there.
There is a low power analog channel on channel 6 broadcasting from Loma Prieta: KBFK-LP. Most of my tuners are digital only, and the one that is capable of analog does not get this station due to the FM traps I'm using.
I'm on a hillside an 500' altitude with my antenna 30' above ground. My 44 mile line of site to Sutro passes over San Jose, and there are many FM towers between here and there.
There are two types of broadband FM Traps....one is a full-band (or, full band-stop) filter, that attenuates the entire 88-108 MHz FM band. That one will "slop over" a bit on the ends, attenuating some of TV Channel 6, and some of the aviation frequencies above 108 MHz.
The other , which is often recommended for people trying to receive TV channel 6, starts attenuating around 88 or 89 MHz, but does not offer real attenuation (20 dB is a typical figure) until it gets to about 92 MHz. This type goes with the assumption that FM stations near the low end of the band are usually low-powered "educational" stations, that won't need the full attenuation.
Unfortunately, that stopped being the case years ago....many non-commercial stations are running full power in that part of the band. Also, there are many low-power stations scattered around on cell towers and roof tops, not just on big transmission sites. So, you could have a strong signal from a nearby LP station, affecting the reception.
There are variable traps that allow you to notch out one (often two) FM channels. You could use the 92-108 MHz trap, in series with the variable-frequency trap ("notch filter), and use the notches to attenuate a couple of the strongest FM stations at the low end of the dial.
The other , which is often recommended for people trying to receive TV channel 6, starts attenuating around 88 or 89 MHz, but does not offer real attenuation (20 dB is a typical figure) until it gets to about 92 MHz. This type goes with the assumption that FM stations near the low end of the band are usually low-powered "educational" stations, that won't need the full attenuation.
Unfortunately, that stopped being the case years ago....many non-commercial stations are running full power in that part of the band. Also, there are many low-power stations scattered around on cell towers and roof tops, not just on big transmission sites. So, you could have a strong signal from a nearby LP station, affecting the reception.
There are variable traps that allow you to notch out one (often two) FM channels. You could use the 92-108 MHz trap, in series with the variable-frequency trap ("notch filter), and use the notches to attenuate a couple of the strongest FM stations at the low end of the dial.
Joined
·
21,369 Posts
Joined
·
16,678 Posts
Hmmm, I'm out in the Evergreen Area with pretty much an unobstructed LOS to Sutro about 50 miles away.
Hmmm, I'm out in the Evergreen Area with pretty much an unobstructed LOS to Sutro about 50 miles away.
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but how exactly should I interpret this graph?
If I'm looking to block FM from interfering with Hi-VHF channels 7 and 12, is there any difference between the Radio Shack and the Antennas Direct FM filter?
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=10939219#
http://www.antennasdirect.com/store/FM_band_rejection_filter.html?cjid=6146852
If it helps, here are my TV Fool and FM Fool reports:
If I'm looking to block FM from interfering with Hi-VHF channels 7 and 12, is there any difference between the Radio Shack and the Antennas Direct FM filter?
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=10939219#
http://www.antennasdirect.com/store/FM_band_rejection_filter.html?cjid=6146852
If it helps, here are my TV Fool and FM Fool reports:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADTech /t/1431548/fm-filter#post_22451595
I posted a plot over at DHC last year that compared the old Radio Shack with our filter. Note that the RS number was mistyped and should have been 15-577.
Ch7 is 174-180 MHz, so 2nd Harmonics of 87-90 MHz in FM Band can cause interference....so A-D FM Filter would be Better, although it also attenuates Ch6 a bit.....but that's not an issue for you.
Ch12 is 204-210 MHz, so 2nd harmonics of 102-105 MHz in FM Band can cause interference....so EITHER will work.
PS: Here's a LEGIBLE copy of ADTech's chart (Center is 100 MHz with 5 MHz per Horizontal Division):
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1255180
FYI: The above R-S Filter was REPLACED with the RS 15-024 part number....do we have a chart for the new one????
Ch12 is 204-210 MHz, so 2nd harmonics of 102-105 MHz in FM Band can cause interference....so EITHER will work.
PS: Here's a LEGIBLE copy of ADTech's chart (Center is 100 MHz with 5 MHz per Horizontal Division):
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=1255180
FYI: The above R-S Filter was REPLACED with the RS 15-024 part number....do we have a chart for the new one????
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
In your situation, either would likely be an appropriate choice unless you are using a 2-69 channel antenna. Are you having issues with 7 or 9 now?
Wow, what a huge difference a $5 FM Trap from Radio Shack made! It seems being just three miles away from a large group of FM transmitters was really hurting my reception.
Just out of curiosity, I tested two antennas, the Antennas Direct ClearStream 2V and the RCA ANT751R in three combinations: just the antenna, using a $5 Radio Shack 15-024 FM Trap, and using a $25 RCA TVPRAMP1R Preamplifier with the FM Trap enabled.
Here's the results:
This was tested using a Hauppage WinTV-HVR 950Q USB card as the tuner connected to 30' of vanilla RG6.
The numbers in the cells are the SNR as measured by the "Digital Signal Quality" application Hauppage includes which ranges from 0 to 27.
Cells colored red are stations that were found during a channel scan but wouldn't come in, and those colored yellow came in just fine but under the maximum SNR of 27.
Blank cells meant I was unable to lock onto that channel during a channel scan, even though TV Fool said it might be possible.
It's interesting how especially with the RCA ANT751R there were a huge chunk of stations that weren't even viewable without a FM Trap. Also interesting how the ClearStream 2V only really struggled with VHF 12 but had no problems with that channel once the FM trap was installed.
So, based on these results, would anything help out with the VHF 12 or UHF 36 or 51, the only three channels that aren't coming in at the top SNR of 27? Or with UHF 27 or UHF 42, the two channels I never located?
A different type of FM Trap? A different antenna? Something else?
Just out of curiosity, I tested two antennas, the Antennas Direct ClearStream 2V and the RCA ANT751R in three combinations: just the antenna, using a $5 Radio Shack 15-024 FM Trap, and using a $25 RCA TVPRAMP1R Preamplifier with the FM Trap enabled.
Here's the results:
This was tested using a Hauppage WinTV-HVR 950Q USB card as the tuner connected to 30' of vanilla RG6.
The numbers in the cells are the SNR as measured by the "Digital Signal Quality" application Hauppage includes which ranges from 0 to 27.
Cells colored red are stations that were found during a channel scan but wouldn't come in, and those colored yellow came in just fine but under the maximum SNR of 27.
Blank cells meant I was unable to lock onto that channel during a channel scan, even though TV Fool said it might be possible.
It's interesting how especially with the RCA ANT751R there were a huge chunk of stations that weren't even viewable without a FM Trap. Also interesting how the ClearStream 2V only really struggled with VHF 12 but had no problems with that channel once the FM trap was installed.
So, based on these results, would anything help out with the VHF 12 or UHF 36 or 51, the only three channels that aren't coming in at the top SNR of 27? Or with UHF 27 or UHF 42, the two channels I never located?
A different type of FM Trap? A different antenna? Something else?
Joined
·
3,282 Posts
Since you are well over the minimum threshold of 15-16 dB SNR (assuming that is what is being reported), I wouldn't waste time "chasing numbers" just for their own sake.
I'd keep the C2V and FM trap and get rid of the two RCA items. Unless you need longer cables or splits, the amp doesn't appear to be needed for basic reception on your current tuner.
KAXT is likely getting covered up by either adjacent channel interference from KCSM or from co-channel interference from KPIX's Mt Vaca translator which might be getting a strong reflection off the hill in front of you.
I'd keep the C2V and FM trap and get rid of the two RCA items. Unless you need longer cables or splits, the amp doesn't appear to be needed for basic reception on your current tuner.
KAXT is likely getting covered up by either adjacent channel interference from KCSM or from co-channel interference from KPIX's Mt Vaca translator which might be getting a strong reflection off the hill in front of you.
1 - 20 of 134 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!