Thoughts on the MCA204m Multicoupler?

[KE4NYV]

I'm looking at the MCA204m as a low cost solution to using a single antenna with several receivers. Does anyone have any experience with this model? Any comments, good or bad? Worth the $185-200 price tag? Do the unused ports need to be 50 ohm terminated?

Thanks!

[N9JIG]

I have a half dozen Stridsberg multi couplers, including a couple MCA 204's. They are fantastic and are ideal for your application.

I have never bothered terminating any unused ports, I tried it a couple times but could not notice any difference one way or another. I suppose one could tell if they used a service monitor but I sure couldn't notice any difference.

[KE4NYV]

Originally Posted by N9JIG

I have a half dozen Stridsberg multi couplers, including a couple MCA 204's. They are fantastic and are ideal for your application.

I have never bothered terminating any unused ports, I tried it a couple times but could not notice any difference one way or another. I suppose one could tell if they used a service monitor but I sure couldn't notice any difference.

Thanks, Rich! I think I might pick one up in the next couple of weeks. I found a little more info after making my original post and it all coincided with your comments.

[kruser]

I concur with Rich.
They are very well built units and worth the cost if needing to run multiple receivers off a single antenna.

I also own several of the 4 and 8 port models for the scanner range as well as the HF range.

And like Rich, I've never been able to find a difference with terminating the unused ports.
I ended up doing it only because I had several dozen 50ohm bnc terminators to put to use.

Just never do something stupid and accidently key up a transmitter as it will destroy the RF transistor faster than you even realize what you just did!

There is another multicoupler made by Digital Loggers Inc. It is a 16 port version but I found that it has a higer noise figure over the Stridsberg models and would destroy a weak P25 digital signal.
The DLI coupler did work fine for conventional analog stuff so I use it to feed all my "antiques" that are crystalled for all the analog stuff still in use in this area.
The DLI model uses a higher gain RF section to overcome the added splitters and with that, I found that the output had some gain which I did not want. I prefer a flat output with no gain or loss ideally.

[reconrider8]

Does anyone want to give me one pretty please... as im about to throw over $300 in my tower

[StephenVa]

I hope they are good thoughts. I have a 4 port model on the way from grove.

[commscanaus]

Well worth the money!

After having tried TV splitters and other such methods of antenna sharing, the Stridsberg is by far the best.
The MCA204M active version is used here to share a DJ-130 discone with several receivers.
Absolutely no issues with receivers interfering with one another, which was happening with the TV splitters.

Also tried terminating unused ports with 50ohm loads but could not find any discernible differences between loaded or unloaded.

I ended up getting two of the MCA204M, which are used on different antennas.

There are plenty of scanner hobbyists who have had good experiences using cable TV drop amplifiers/splitters, but many of those on offer locally have far too high noise figures and too much amplification, which would not work well with scanner front ends in this location.

Eventually I may end up getting a Stridsberg passive four port model for use in the car.

Commscanaus.

[N8DRC]

Originally Posted by KE4NYV

I'm looking at the MCA204m as a low cost solution to using a single antenna with several receivers. Does anyone have any experience with this model? Any comments, good or bad? Worth the $185-200 price tag? Do the unused ports need to be 50 ohm terminated?

Thanks!

I have used 2 of MCA204m's for over 10 years now and am very happy they work great, bought them from Stridsburg..Their customer service is great am very pleased with that company..I had one fail about a year ago and Stridsburg company fixed it for free all I had to do was ship it to them, they stand behind their products and they are made in the USA..

[reconrider8]

The only problem i see in them is they are to expensive

[KE4NYV]

Thanks for all of the recommendations. I didn't realize they were so sensitive to near-field RF, so I'm thinking I'll have to re-arrange my antennas to make this work. My "shack" at home consists of a couple of scanners, but also my HF transceiver and several VHF/UHF transceivers. Looks like I'll need to get some decent isolation.

[StephenVa]

Just a bit on mine from someone who hasn't ever used one before... UPS dropped it off today and my novice ears can tell a big difference versus the t-splitter I had. I am running a 996xt and a old RS Pro-2066 I've had forever. There was some static and decreased signal in the radio shack scanner when they were both tuned to the same freq. Seems I'm getting a better signal on the 996xt also. The static on the 2066 is gone and sounding just as clear as the 996xt. I'm supposed to have 2 15x's delivered today so I will play around with everything. The static drove me nuts so I'm very pleased so far.

[carmelof]

Hi Jason been using 2 of the Stridsberg-MCA204M for 5 years and i connect 8 receivers on each one with no problems they are expensive but woth it..

Regards Lino..

[N9JIG]

Originally Posted by KE4NYV

Thanks for all of the recommendations. I didn't realize they were so sensitive to near-field RF, so I'm thinking I'll have to re-arrange my antennas to make this work. My "shack" at home consists of a couple of scanners, but also my HF transceiver and several VHF/UHF transceivers. Looks like I'll need to get some decent isolation.

Sorry I missed this thread after a while...

I have had issues with the Stridsberg taking a hit from nearby transmitters. Every few years I have to send one back to Strids for repair since I run two CDM's and a ham dual bander in the car, with the antenna within 15 feet of the scanner antenna. There is some sort of diode or transistor that pops to protect the rest of the circuitry from damage. Every time they have handle the repair for free, even though I offer to pay.

[jack103]

They repaired my 204 the first time but charged me $45 dollars the second time. These units have a 3 year warranty ,after that it's $45 .

[N5TWB]

I just put a Stridsberg 4-port active multi-coupler in my truck. The number of bars on my 996T jumped to the max and I'm at least 15 miles from one of the TRS sites. I note the cautions above about ham transceivers overloading a front-end diode in the Stridsberg but I didn't transmit while trying out my scanners. I've not had any overload problems before putting in the multi-coupler but we'll see. The transmitting antennas are at least 3 feet away from the scanner antenna.

[737mech]

Ok guys it's all sounds great on the Stridsberg side vs' a tv splitter. I'm asking is there a "Wow!" factor here like "Wow what a difference!"? I can't find out much about the Digital loggers model and I'm trying to decide where to put my money. $300 for 8 ports Stridsberg or $295 for 16 ports Digital Loggers. Anybody with more info or "Wow factor" experience??

[WayneH]

The only real "wow" between the TV amps and the Stridsberg is the price. I use both and for the price the Electrolines are not much of a loss if you encounter issues. I wouldn't recommend anything but the 8 ports since the gain is less. I also wouldn't use anything but Electroline. Here's how I would sum them up:

Stridsberg:
Expensive
Great build quality but not bombproof
Uses a standard 12V power source and plug
Output ports don't have excessive gain
You can purchase band specific models
Support below 54MHz
Built specifically for the monitoring enthusiast

Electroline:
Cheap
Require 15V via an F connector
Built for outdoor use
Not designed to receive below 54MHz
On the two and four port models the gain is excessive
Uses all F connectors
One of the output ports has pass-through DC you have to block

I currently run a MCA204 with an Electroline 2800 connected to it. The Electroline has too much gain so it distorts digital data (Control Channel decoding, etc). I get less sig off the 204 but better decode quality. I've tried splitting them up and found the performance was not any better.

[kruser]

Originally Posted by 737mech

Ok guys it's all sounds great on the Stridsberg side vs' a tv splitter. I'm asking is there a "Wow!" factor here like "Wow what a difference!"? I can't find out much about the Digital loggers model and I'm trying to decide where to put my money. $300 for 8 ports Stridsberg or $295 for 16 ports Digital Loggers. Anybody with more info or "Wow factor" experience??

I have the Digital Loggers 16 port model as well.
I found that it has a higher noise figure than the Stridsberg models and that destroys some P25 digital data streams.
It works great for conventional analog signals feeding lots of older scanners though.
It just does not perform nearly as well as the Stridsberg MCA20x models in my opinion. Mainly due to the higher noise figure and possibly a bit of gain where the Stridsberg's attempt to have no gain at the output.
The gain I speak of is usually in the form of noise.

There was no "wow factor" with the digital loggers model and mine is retired from digital use. I use it to feed a ton of old models including crystal tuned models and the old Electra Bearcat 250, 300's ect.

[mtindor]

I prefer my Stridsberg over the Electroline because there was just too much gain on the electroline [I'm already in VHF hell] and because Stridsberg support is fantastic, second to none. I can't help but believe the Stridsberg is a better product, but I don't have any data to give you to back up that claim.

The only other company whose support ever compared to Stridsberg is Par Electronics (Dale Parfitt). I have multiple different notch filters and antennas from Par, and Dale is an awesome guy.

Back to Stridsberg - For some the expense is a hard pill to swallow, but it leaves no aftertaste. I wouldn't use anything else. I've never had a problem with nearby RF, but I usually remember to disconnect my scanner feedline if I'm going to transmit 45w on 2m/440 or 100w below 30mhz. So far so good.

Mike

[aggie72]

Any one tried using the Channel Master CM3418 distribution box for scanner use? It's under $50 on Amazon!