[zipper]

I'm not sure where to post this, since I couldn't seem to find a forum that was really related to this, so sorry if this isn't the correct place to put this question. What I wanted to know was where I could get some nice F-Type Coaxial splitters for cable. I'm currently using a 1 to 5 splitter with 7.5Db loss on each output. I'm looking to change out the splitter to something nicer. I will be going with a 1 to 2 (Main line coming in from house active splitter, to a cable modem) and the second line will go to a 1 to 3 splitter (two TVs, and a HTPC). The main problem is finding decent splitters. The monster ones are complete crap, they have high losses and there always seem to be signal problems with them. The current one I have is from Radio shack and it is a 5MHz-1Ghz splitter and it's done pretty good. I looked around on Crutchfield, Amazon, and Newegg, and none of them seem to carry decent splitters, or if they do they do not give the specifications out. Any help would be appreciated, Thanks.

 

[PCW]

I'd give Stark Electronics a call. They are extemely reputable and inexpensive. Note the spelling in their URL.

http://www.starkelectronic.com/index.htm

 

[zipper]

Thanks, this is exactly what I needed.

 

[blfuller]

I thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth here. The splitters that I have had the best luck with have a PCB internally instead of plain wires. I have used the Monster and the Acoustic Research splitters. I prefer the Acoustic research as they are less expensive. Another very important issue is if you have a amplified antenna. The splitter must have a DC power-pass circuit that allows the power to reach the antenna.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

One of the key issues with splitters is many of them have higher signal loss in the upper frequencies - which is where cable is putting the HDTV signals.


This means more errors that you will see in the video (and hear in the audio).


I finally gave up on the cheap approach and purchased a Terk 5x8 multiswitch. You can also put satellite through it.


You can find them on eBay for roughly $60 brand new. Best Buy sells them for $150.


I get 1db better output on than with no switch at all.



They have a small 2x5, but its not amplified. I don't know what that loss would be - but I know there would be some.


I actually purchased 2 of the 5x8 - one for my OTA/Satellite feeds and one for my cable feeds.


It's overkill, but it works with no loss of signal at 8 outputs and gives me future potential to add HDTV in more places without the feeds and introducing more errors.

 

[UncD2000]

All passive splitters have about the same loss figures. (2-way models have two -3.5dB outputs, 3-way models have one -3.5 and two -7dB outputs, and 4-way models have four -7dB outputs). The Regal line used by Comcast is good, with 120dB EMI isolation from 5 to 1000 MHz. The price is right too: they'll usually give them to you if you go to one of their offices with a recent account statement. Other cable providers probably do the same.

 

[AntAltMike]

If a user's system performance appears to have been "helped" by a "better" splitter, then he has some peculiar threshold signal problem that needs to be remedied. The input window of DTV digital tuners is probably over 30dB wide. The input window of analog tuners is over 40dB wide. The likelihood that a fraction of a dB difference in a splitter's insertion loss, even if it is real, will make a performance difference in any real world situation is very low.


I have no reason to believe that "better" splitters, if they even exist, have less loss than do "worse" splitters. A splitter might be considered better by one standard if it has greater EMI shielding, but that is of no concern to the end user. It is only important to cable companies that are responsible for the "cumulative leakage" of their systems signal into the aeronautical and other broadcast bands.


A splitter might be considered better if has a premium center conductor seizure mechanism.


I design and install master antenna system reception headends for highrise buildings that balance and mix the digital and analog television signals from half a dozen or more antennas. I use Blonder Tongue distribution amplifiers that cost over $400 each. And I always use the cheapest splitters I can find. I almost never pay more than a dollar for a splitter. In fact, I sometimes buy a bulk quantity of splitters for commercial use for maybe twenty cents each. I evaluate every signal before it goes into each splitter and after with a spectrum analyzer and have never seen any non-linear attenuation that would degrade the quality of the signals provided the splitters were rated for the frequency I was using them for.


The only frequency problems I have ever experienced with any passive devices were that when I tried to use "European-style" splitters rated for 450Mz to 1,750Mz for cable TV signal distribution, I noticed that they choked out channels 4 and cable channel 17, which is roughly one harmonic interval above channel 4, and some of the old Jerrold walltaps that are rated for use up to 400Mz (below the American domestic television UHF band) severely rolled off UHF channels 20 (507Mz) and 26 (543Mz). That's it for passive splitter problems that I have experienced distributing broadcast-band (54Mz-806Mz) television signals in over 30 years of RF distribution work.


For cable TV, they should be sending you the level of signal sufficient for your usage. If their input signal is inadequate, then they either can increase your input tap value slightly or furnish you with a small signal amplifier. I am strongly averse to feeding cable TV signals into satellite multiswitch inputs. The satellite multiswitches that don't amplify broadcast TV signal typically lose about 14 or more 4B in their 4-way models, which is worse than you would do with external splitting and diplexing if needed, and their amplifiers often are not designed to handle a 100+ channel load of modern cable TV and develop intermodulation byproducts that degrade signal quality.


If one or more of anyone's broadcast DTV input signals is so weak that splitter loss really does degrade its performance, then he should put a low-noise, low gain (under 20dB) preamplifier on the antenna lead. That will help much more than a splitter that might fortuitously lose a fraction of a dB less than some other splitter.

 

[Jim Christian]

I like the ones at www.ebaystores.com/hdtvsupply

 

[AntAltMike]

The only splitter I found on that site was a two-way that sold for $14.95 and had just 90dB of EMI shielding, meaning the back of the case is probably glued on rather than soldered on. The linked page seems to offer products at Monster Cable prices without the Monster Cable name.

 

[UncD2000]

Mike, have you ever used the old Tru-Spec DSV-3, a 3-way 5-500MHz design with three -5.5dB outputs? I have a few of these and always wondered how they stack up against the usual 3-way splitter design, and whether they have much rolloff above 500MHz.

 

[AntAltMike]

Quote:

Originally posted by UncD2000 Mike, have you ever used the old Tru-Spec DSV-3, a 3-way 5-500MHz design with three -5.5dB outputs? I have a few of these and always wondered how they stack up against the usual 3-way splitter design, and whether they have much rolloff above 500MHz.

As fate would have it, I am on my way this afternoon to a highrise where I am planning on replacing about thirty old Jerrold 4-port trunkline taps rated to 890Mz, which vary in port value from -30dB at the top floor to -14dB at the bottom floor, with ten, 3-way 5.5dB Blonder Tongue taps supplying thirty Antronix 4-way splitters. The signal strength at various points in this building is suspiciously low, and I suspect that part of the problem comes from the fact that each of the two parallel trunklines is tapped into 15 times and part of the problem is that some of these old Jerrold taps just might not have the high frequency performance they claim.


I estimate that trunklins tapped and split the way I will be tapping and splitting these trunklines will gain about 4 or 5dB per port, just based on the nominal loss figures of my splitters versus the nominal loss figures on the Jerrold, four-port taps, and I hope to recover another five dB or so of mysterious high frequency loss that I am also experiencing, though I will never know for sure how much of that is coming from the frequency response of theold taps themselves and how much is coming from the dozens of old, tarnished connection points.


I have never noticed a frequency rating of 5-500Mz on any old 3-way splitters I have, but I will look in modest "pull-out" inventory I am carrying on my truck and if I see any old Tru-Spec components so-rated, I'll check them for high frequency loss, as this system is also carrying an analog channel 32 (579Mz), 56 (723Mz) and 66 (783Mz).



Do new Tru-Spec three-way splitters actually have 500Mz ratings, or are these just some leftovers? As I recall, even when I have looked at old (twenty-year old or more) splitters, they always were rated up to the high end of the UHF band. It was only some early, shielded directional couplers that had ratings of 400Mz, and 600Mz that I have had some trouble with.

 

[UncD2000]

These are probably 20 years old. In some old Pico Macom catalogs I see that the DSV ('vertical" port) and DS75 models were first rated 5-500MHz and later upgraded to 5-600MHz. These were all called VHF models. The UHF/VHF/FM models (DSU series) were rated 5-900MHz. Only the DSV-3 models had the -5.5dB outputs.