Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 16th 14, 05:26 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 250
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?


It really depends on how good your old analogue NTSC was. For a
noiseless picture, you would need around 43dB CNR, but pictures were
still more-than-watch-able at 25dB, and the picture was often still
lockable at ridiculously low CNRs (when you certainly wouldn't bother
watching it). Digital signals can work at SNRs down to around 15dB for
64QAM and 20dB for 256QAM (although if it's a little below this, and you
will suddenly get nothing).


That has not been our experience. We had a number of customers here in
the DC area who had great pictures on NTSC sets, but got either heavy
pixilation or no picture at all when the switchover occurred. We sent
them to a company which does tv antenna installations (we do a lot of
low voltage, including tv - but not antennas). In every case,
installing a better outdoor antenna solved the problem.

No one said the NTSC had to be noiseless. But the 43dB is a bit high,
even for older sets. Input from the cable tv company to our equipment
was 10-20dB; we tried to push 10dB to all of the outputs but never had a
problem even down to 7dB (the lowest we would let it drop to).


That makes no sense; a 7dB CNR would be pretty much unwatchable on
analogue, it would be a very very noisy picture, if it even locked at all!

Jeff

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 16th 14, 07:43 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

In message , Jeff writes

It really depends on how good your old analogue NTSC was. For a
noiseless picture, you would need around 43dB CNR, but pictures were
still more-than-watch-able at 25dB, and the picture was often still
lockable at ridiculously low CNRs (when you certainly wouldn't bother
watching it). Digital signals can work at SNRs down to around 15dB for
64QAM and 20dB for 256QAM (although if it's a little below this, and you
will suddenly get nothing).


That has not been our experience. We had a number of customers here in
the DC area who had great pictures on NTSC sets, but got either heavy
pixilation or no picture at all when the switchover occurred. We sent
them to a company which does tv antenna installations (we do a lot of
low voltage, including tv - but not antennas). In every case,
installing a better outdoor antenna solved the problem.

No one said the NTSC had to be noiseless. But the 43dB is a bit high,
even for older sets. Input from the cable tv company to our equipment
was 10-20dB; we tried to push 10dB to all of the outputs but never had a
problem even down to 7dB (the lowest we would let it drop to).


That makes no sense; a 7dB CNR would be pretty much unwatchable on
analogue, it would be a very very noisy picture, if it even locked at
all!

I'm also not sure what the figures mean. From distant memory, the NCTA
minimum RF input level (for NTSC) was 0dBmV (into a TV set - it might
have been a bit more for set-top boxes), and the CNR 43dB.

The UK cable TV level (for PAL set-tops) was 3dBmV to 15dBmV, with no
more than 3dB between the levels of adjacent channels, and when digital
signals came along, these were run around 15dB below the analogues.

[Note that for both the US and the UK, one of the reasons for these
obviously high signal levels is because cable set-top boxes have
relatively appalling noise figures compared with your modern TV set.]

UK off-air transmissions were somewhat similar, with digitals being run
at 10, 16 and even occasionally 20dB below the analogues. However, when
all the analogues were turned off, the digitals were turned up to
typically 7dB below what the analogues had been. This would suggest that
digital receivers (including HD) are at least perfectly happy with 7dB
less signal than analogue - and in practice, all other things being
equal, digital receivers work down to much lower signal levels than
would be considered satisfactory for analogue. The only obvious proviso
is that while (so far) UK SD transmissions are 64QAM, HD transmissions
are 256QAM, and therefore need maybe 6dB more signal (which will only be
apparent where reception is marginal).
--
ian

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #3   Report Post  
Old March 16th 14, 10:26 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

On 3/16/2014 1:26 PM, Jeff wrote:

It really depends on how good your old analogue NTSC was. For a
noiseless picture, you would need around 43dB CNR, but pictures were
still more-than-watch-able at 25dB, and the picture was often still
lockable at ridiculously low CNRs (when you certainly wouldn't bother
watching it). Digital signals can work at SNRs down to around 15dB for
64QAM and 20dB for 256QAM (although if it's a little below this, and you
will suddenly get nothing).


That has not been our experience. We had a number of customers here in
the DC area who had great pictures on NTSC sets, but got either heavy
pixilation or no picture at all when the switchover occurred. We sent
them to a company which does tv antenna installations (we do a lot of
low voltage, including tv - but not antennas). In every case,
installing a better outdoor antenna solved the problem.

No one said the NTSC had to be noiseless. But the 43dB is a bit high,
even for older sets. Input from the cable tv company to our equipment
was 10-20dB; we tried to push 10dB to all of the outputs but never had a
problem even down to 7dB (the lowest we would let it drop to).


That makes no sense; a 7dB CNR would be pretty much unwatchable on
analogue, it would be a very very noisy picture, if it even locked at all!

Jeff


I'm not talking CNR - I'm talking signal strength. 7dbm is plenty of
signal. Most later TV's would work even at 0dbm.

HDTV, not so much.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================
  #4   Report Post  
Old March 16th 14, 11:17 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 3/16/2014 1:26 PM, Jeff wrote:

It really depends on how good your old analogue NTSC was. For a
noiseless picture, you would need around 43dB CNR, but pictures were
still more-than-watch-able at 25dB, and the picture was often still
lockable at ridiculously low CNRs (when you certainly wouldn't bother
watching it). Digital signals can work at SNRs down to around 15dB for
64QAM and 20dB for 256QAM (although if it's a little below this, and you
will suddenly get nothing).


That has not been our experience. We had a number of customers here in
the DC area who had great pictures on NTSC sets, but got either heavy
pixilation or no picture at all when the switchover occurred. We sent
them to a company which does tv antenna installations (we do a lot of
low voltage, including tv - but not antennas). In every case,
installing a better outdoor antenna solved the problem.

No one said the NTSC had to be noiseless. But the 43dB is a bit high,
even for older sets. Input from the cable tv company to our equipment
was 10-20dB; we tried to push 10dB to all of the outputs but never had a
problem even down to 7dB (the lowest we would let it drop to).


That makes no sense; a 7dB CNR would be pretty much unwatchable on
analogue, it would be a very very noisy picture, if it even locked at all!

Jeff


I'm not talking CNR - I'm talking signal strength. 7dbm is plenty of
signal. Most later TV's would work even at 0dbm.

HDTV, not so much.

7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!
--
Ian

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #5   Report Post  
Old March 17th 14, 01:16 AM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

On 3/16/2014 7:17 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 3/16/2014 1:26 PM, Jeff wrote:

It really depends on how good your old analogue NTSC was. For a
noiseless picture, you would need around 43dB CNR, but pictures were
still more-than-watch-able at 25dB, and the picture was often still
lockable at ridiculously low CNRs (when you certainly wouldn't bother
watching it). Digital signals can work at SNRs down to around 15dB for
64QAM and 20dB for 256QAM (although if it's a little below this,
and you
will suddenly get nothing).


That has not been our experience. We had a number of customers here in
the DC area who had great pictures on NTSC sets, but got either heavy
pixilation or no picture at all when the switchover occurred. We sent
them to a company which does tv antenna installations (we do a lot of
low voltage, including tv - but not antennas). In every case,
installing a better outdoor antenna solved the problem.

No one said the NTSC had to be noiseless. But the 43dB is a bit high,
even for older sets. Input from the cable tv company to our equipment
was 10-20dB; we tried to push 10dB to all of the outputs but never
had a
problem even down to 7dB (the lowest we would let it drop to).

That makes no sense; a 7dB CNR would be pretty much unwatchable on
analogue, it would be a very very noisy picture, if it even locked at
all!

Jeff


I'm not talking CNR - I'm talking signal strength. 7dbm is plenty of
signal. Most later TV's would work even at 0dbm.

HDTV, not so much.

7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!


Not in the United States. It was the minimum that the cable industry
provides to the TV set.

We are talking a signal 4.25Mhz wide signal, not SSB or CW.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================


  #6   Report Post  
Old March 17th 14, 07:45 AM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 250
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?


7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!


Not in the United States. It was the minimum that the cable industry
provides to the TV set.

We are talking a signal 4.25Mhz wide signal, not SSB or CW.


dBm is not a bandwidth dependant measurement such as CNR which is.
Putting +7dBm into a tv receiver is madness, it would cause severe
overload and inter mods. +7dBm is 50mW and that equates to about 61mV in
a 75 ohm system which is an enormous signal.

Jeff
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 17th 14, 01:14 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

On 3/17/2014 3:45 AM, Jeff wrote:

7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!


Not in the United States. It was the minimum that the cable industry
provides to the TV set.

We are talking a signal 4.25Mhz wide signal, not SSB or CW.


dBm is not a bandwidth dependant measurement such as CNR which is.
Putting +7dBm into a tv receiver is madness, it would cause severe
overload and inter mods. +7dBm is 50mW and that equates to about 61mV in
a 75 ohm system which is an enormous signal.

Jeff


Wrong. TV's are made to handle at least 20 dbm. And cable tv companies
must deliver at least 10 dbm to the premises.

TV signals (at least in the U.S.) are not measured by CNR - they are
measured by dbm. CNR is not important because the bandwidth does not
change.

Your insistence on using CNR shows you know nothing about how the
industry measures signal strength.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 17th 14, 03:32 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 3/17/2014 3:45 AM, Jeff wrote:

7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!

Not in the United States. It was the minimum that the cable industry
provides to the TV set.

We are talking a signal 4.25Mhz wide signal, not SSB or CW.


dBm is not a bandwidth dependant measurement such as CNR which is.
Putting +7dBm into a tv receiver is madness, it would cause severe
overload and inter mods. +7dBm is 50mW and that equates to about 61mV in
a 75 ohm system which is an enormous signal.

Jeff


Wrong. TV's are made to handle at least 20 dbm. And cable tv
companies must deliver at least 10 dbm to the premises.

You do realise that 20dBm (appx 68dBmV) is a massive 100mW? With a
modest 50 channel analogue cable TV system, that would be a total input
power of 5W - which would have a TV set or set-top box sagging at the
knees - if not even beginning top smoke!

TV signals (at least in the U.S.) are not measured by CNR


Well of course they aren't. CNR is a ratio - not a level.

- they are measured by dbm.


No. The US and UK cable TV industry definitely uses dBmV.

0dBmV is 1mV - a reasonable signal to feed to a TV set (especially
directly from an antenna).

0dBm is appx 48dBmV (250mV) - and that's one hell of a TV signal!

With a 75 ohm source impedance (antenna and coax) - and no significant
levels of outside noise-like interference, a 0dBmV (1mV) analogue NTSC
signal, direct from an antenna, will have a CNR of around 57dB. A TV set
with a decent tuner noise figure (5dB?) or a set-top box (8dB) will
produce essentially noise-free pictures.

However, with an analogue TV signal from a large cable TV system, the
signal CNR will be much worse than 57dB (regardless of its level). If I
recall correctly, the NCTA ( National Cable Television Association)
minimum spec is a CNR of 43dB (UK is 6B). At this ratio, it is judged
that picture noise is just beginning to become visible.

CNR is not important because the bandwidth does not change.


You're havin' a laff - surely?!

Your insistence on using CNR shows you know nothing about how the
industry measures signal strength.

I'm not insisting on anything. However, an analogue with a poor CNR will
produce noisy pictures - regardless of the signal level. Similarly, a
digital signal with a too poor an SNR/MER will fail to decode -
regardless of the signal level. I think the UK cable TV spec for digital
signals is 25dB (although a good set-top box will decode down to the
mid-teens).
--
Ian

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
  #9   Report Post  
Old March 17th 14, 03:45 PM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 250
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

On 17/03/2014 13:14, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 3/17/2014 3:45 AM, Jeff wrote:

7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!

Not in the United States. It was the minimum that the cable industry
provides to the TV set.

We are talking a signal 4.25Mhz wide signal, not SSB or CW.


dBm is not a bandwidth dependant measurement such as CNR which is.
Putting +7dBm into a tv receiver is madness, it would cause severe
overload and inter mods. +7dBm is 50mW and that equates to about 61mV in
a 75 ohm system which is an enormous signal.

Jeff


Wrong. TV's are made to handle at least 20 dbm. And cable tv companies
must deliver at least 10 dbm to the premises.

TV signals (at least in the U.S.) are not measured by CNR - they are
measured by dbm. CNR is not important because the bandwidth does not
change.

Your insistence on using CNR shows you know nothing about how the
industry measures signal strength.


I have not insisted that CNR was used, it that was another poster who
mentioned CNR, what I was pointing out was the error that you made in
taking the 43db CNR value that was posted and then going on about
dbMmlevels.

I also dispute that televisions are made to handle +20dBm; that is 100mW
far in excess of what a tv tuner can handle without overload!!!!

+20dbmV may be but not +20dbm.

Jeff
  #10   Report Post  
Old March 17th 14, 09:12 AM posted to uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
Default Quad shield coax & dielectric?

In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 3/16/2014 7:17 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jerry Stuckle
writes
On 3/16/2014 1:26 PM, Jeff wrote:

It really depends on how good your old analogue NTSC was. For a
noiseless picture, you would need around 43dB CNR, but pictures were
still more-than-watch-able at 25dB, and the picture was often still
lockable at ridiculously low CNRs (when you certainly wouldn't bother
watching it). Digital signals can work at SNRs down to around 15dB for
64QAM and 20dB for 256QAM (although if it's a little below this,
and you
will suddenly get nothing).


That has not been our experience. We had a number of customers here in
the DC area who had great pictures on NTSC sets, but got either heavy
pixilation or no picture at all when the switchover occurred. We sent
them to a company which does tv antenna installations (we do a lot of
low voltage, including tv - but not antennas). In every case,
installing a better outdoor antenna solved the problem.

No one said the NTSC had to be noiseless. But the 43dB is a bit high,
even for older sets. Input from the cable tv company to our equipment
was 10-20dB; we tried to push 10dB to all of the outputs but never
had a
problem even down to 7dB (the lowest we would let it drop to).

That makes no sense; a 7dB CNR would be pretty much unwatchable on
analogue, it would be a very very noisy picture, if it even locked at
all!

Jeff


I'm not talking CNR - I'm talking signal strength. 7dbm is plenty of
signal. Most later TV's would work even at 0dbm.

HDTV, not so much.

7dBm is an absolutely colossal signal for a TV set. Even 0dBm is an
absolutely colossal signal!


Not in the United States. It was the minimum that the cable industry
provides to the TV set.

We are talking a signal 4.25Mhz wide signal, not SSB or CW.

The TV signal levels quoted for analogue cable TV don't really involve
bandwidth. The level is always the 'RMS during sync' (or 'RMS during
peak'), which is the RMS level of the vision RF envelope during the
horizontal (or vertical) sync period. This has the advantage of
remaining constant regardless of the video content (ie it's the same for
a completely black picture or a completely white picture).. The only
requirement is that the measuring instrument has sufficient bandwidth to
embrace enough of the low frequency sideband content of the video signal
to give a reading which IS independent of the video content. On a
spectrum analyser, 300kHz resolution will display the demodulated RF
waveform (thus enabling you to read the RF level), but IIRC many field
strength meters have an IF bandwidth of typically 30kHz. However,
regardless of the actual measuring bandwidth, noise levels are
normalised to a bandwidth of 4.2MHz (NTSC) and 5.2MHz (PAL). and
signal-to-noise measurements are adjusted accordingly.

Note that the cable TV industry generally uses units of dBmV (dB with
respect to 1mV - traditionally considered a 'good' level to feed to a TV
set). This is because most of the levels the cable TV guys work with are
generally in excess of 0dBmV (typically 0 to 60dBmV).

The off-air TV guys often use dBuV (dB wrt 1microvolt), as they are
usually dealing with weaker signals. As a result, cable TV guys are
always having to mentally deduct 60dB.

RF communications guys (and domestic satellite) tend to use dBm (which
is a slovenly version of 'dBmW' - dB wrt 1mW) - despite the fact that a
lot of their levels are large negative numbers. Also note that dBm tends
to imply a Zo of 50 ohms, and dBmV/dBuV 75 ohms - but it ain't always
necessarily so.

Anyone working in the RF industry would be well advised to ensure that
they always use the correct units - for example, don't say 'dB' or 'dBm'
when you really mean dBmV. Failure to do so can often result in people
needlessly arguing and talking at cross-purposes.
--
Ian

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Connecting coax shield to tower near top Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T) Antenna 3 July 19th 07 05:57 AM
High Quality {Low Noise} Coax Cable for Shortwave Listening (SWL) Antennas ? - - - Why Not Quad-Shield RG6 ! RHF Shortwave 0 December 25th 06 06:22 PM
soldering coax shield Tam/WB2TT Equipment 11 March 23rd 04 11:05 AM
soldering coax shield Tam/WB2TT Homebrew 10 March 23rd 04 11:05 AM
soldering coax shield Tam/WB2TT Homebrew 0 March 20th 04 03:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017