WS1080: BNC Splitter

Status
Not open for further replies.

dlwtrunked

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
577
i want to run my ws1080 and ws 1065 off same antenna in my truck I have a Antenna Specialist antenna. I am looking at this splitter

https://www.amazon.com/Cable-female-splitter-combiner-probe/dp/B01BZKTLFI/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1484267938&sr=8-9&keywords=bnc+splitter

is this splitter good to use will i lose reception ? any info wpuld be appreaciated.
Although it may work for you, but can invite problems due to lack of isolation between the receivers and cause you real problems. The answer is "No". You really should use a multi-coupler like those at
Receiver Multicouplers, Passive and Active, HF to VHF/UHF Note the passive ones at the bottom. The MC202 is the closest to what your are trying to do. The Min-circuits that just appeared in another reply will also do.
 
Last edited:

trp2525

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,028
i want to run my ws1080 and ws 1065 off same antenna in my truck I have a Antenna Specialist antenna...

is this splitter good to use will i lose reception ?...
any time you split the cable by plugging anything in you lose some signal, maybe not much but you will lose some
A typical 2-way splitter will have an insertion loss of about 3.5 dB which will basically cut the strength of the incoming RF signal in half. A distribution amp/multicoupler with amplification is preferred and is used if you want to overcome the insertion loss of a typical splitter and to have better isolation between the output ports.

That being said, this $6 splitter will work in your application in your truck from 5-1002 MHz with 35 dB isolation between outputs and 3.5 dB insertion loss but it uses F connectors for in/out instead of BNC connectors in/out: 2 Way Digital Splitter (CM3212) | Channel Master

F-to-BNC adapters are readily available to convert an F connector at the end of your coax to a BNC connector to connect to each one of your scanners: http://www.theantennafarm.com/catalog/rfi-rfb-1155-5995.html
 

buckbull

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
448
I forgot to specify its for my vehicle not for home use. I saw some things you guys posted that required 120 volt. Sorry
 

trp2525

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,028
I forgot to specify its for my vehicle not for home use. I saw some things you guys posted that required 120 volt. Sorry
The solution that I posted above in post #9 will work in your vehicle and does not require any additional power source. You would simply have to put an F connector on the end of your current antenna coax and screw that into the antenna input on the 2-way splitter. You would then need two additional short lengths of coax with F connectors on both ends to go from the 2 outputs of the splitter to your 2 scanners. You would use the F-to-BNC adapters that I mentioned to connect to your 2 scanners.
 

trp2525

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,028
What coax for jumpers would you recommend?
You could use standard RG-6 cable/satellite TV cable with F connectors on each end to go from the 2 splitter outputs to your 2 scanners with the use of the F-to-BNC adapters. In a mobile environment for a very short run of coax, RG-6 quad-shield would be overkill. Quad-shield is a little larger diameter compared to standard RG-6 and slightly stiffer to work with.

Keep in mind that what I am recommending is the "cheap man's way out" for what you are trying to accomplish in your vehicle but it will work OK. The $6 splitter that I referenced above (or an equivalent high-quality cable TV splitter) will introduce a 3.5 dB loss to each of the 2 output ports but at least it will give you some port-to-port isolation (35 dB) and it covers the frequency range of 5-1002 MHz which covers all of your typical scanner bands.

I use this "economical/thrifty" setup in my home with decent results. I have an Antenna Specialists MON731 antenna on my roof connected (using an F-to-N adapter at the antenna) with 60 feet of RG-6 quad-shield coax coming into my shack. I then have the coax go through an inline FM broadcast-band notch filter and then to a 2-way cable TV splitter rated for 5-1000 MHz. I use very short runs of RG-6 quad-shield to go from each of the 2 splitter output ports to each of my 2 scanners and connect to the scanners with the F-to-BNC adapters. All of my F connectors are high-quality compression connectors like the cable TV/satellite TV companies use.

Some of the purists on this board might cringe at some of my recommendations as cable TV coax and splitters are 75-ohm impedance while 2-way radio antennas and coax are 50-ohm impedance. In the real world of receive only (like with scanners) the impedance mismatch really doesn't matter that much. If you were going to be transmitting with the antenna and coax, however, that would be an entirely different discussion.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Although it may work for you, but can invite problems due to lack of isolation between the receivers and cause you real problems. The answer is "No". You really should use a multi-coupler like those at
Receiver Multicouplers, Passive and Active, HF to VHF/UHF Note the passive ones at the bottom. The MC202 is the closest to what your are trying to do. The Min-circuits that just appeared in another reply will also do.
Best advice ever .. you cannot just connect 2 radios together with a **** designed option and expect good results. You can use a 4 port device but you need to terminate them properly with items as I posted. The key here is proper isolation between the radios with the device. You get what you pay for .. and if you cheap out and get a crap product you will get crap.
 

Attachments

SOFA_KING

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
1,580
Location
SE Florida
Best advice ever? :confused:

Doesn't anyone using...or suggesting someone else use...a passive splitter with 3.5 dB loss (on a 2 port...7 dB loss on a 4 port) see a problem with this? I won't even go into losses with impedance and connector/adapter mismatch. And yes, loss on RX is just as much a problem as on TX. Doesn't matter whether you TX or just RX. Loss is loss in either direction. I mean, why do we bother to install a nice outdoor antenna, maybe even with a little gain, if we are going to throw it all away, and even go into negative territory, using a VERY lossy "cob job" solution? No wonder some people here complain they can't hear much. Your outside antenna is wasted when you use (cheap) methods like that! Especially if you plan to hear direct simplex communication from mobile or handheld units.

The correct solution is the multi-coupler with a well designed small active LOW NOISE amplifier (as noise figures and overload rejectionreally does matter in the calculations of all this...noise is negative gain, and overload kills reception). The Stridsberg MCA204M, or MCA202M if yo are really trying to keep expenses to a minimum, are the solutions that will preserve your antenna system signal without additional loss. The multi-coupler operates on 12 volts DC, so powering it from a car is easy. Just make sure you connect + and - correctly. If you use a 4 port model, and only need to use 2 ports, you can terminate (plug in 50 Ohm dummy loads) the unused ports, but you really don't have to with the high isolation of each port.

That is the right solution, and will allow you to keep your "hard earned" range without throwing it away. Of course, using the best antenna for the frequencies involved, AND using the lowest loss coax you can practically afford (primarily on home station installations) is advisable. You will understand why if you go through all the calculations and add up all the gains and (many) losses. Loss is BAD for reception.

Phil
 

trp2525

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,028
Although it may work for you, but can invite problems due to lack of isolation between the receivers and cause you real problems. The answer is "No". You really should use a multi-coupler like those at
Receiver Multicouplers, Passive and Active, HF to VHF/UHF Note the passive ones at the bottom. The MC202 is the closest to what your are trying to do. The Min-circuits that just appeared in another reply will also do.
Best advice ever .. you cannot just connect 2 radios together with a **** designed option and expect good results. You can use a 4 port device but you need to terminate them properly with items as I posted. The key here is proper isolation between the radios with the device. You get what you pay for .. and if you cheap out and get a crap product you will get crap.
Just as an FYI the price of the Stridsberg MC202 2-port passive multicoupler mentioned is $75. It has a 50-ohm impedance, is rated from 10 MHz to 1,000 MHz, has a 3.5 dB loss at each of the 2 output ports and has a port-to-port isolation (typical) of 25 dB with a minimum of 22 dB. It uses BNC connectors in and out (with an option to use TNC connectors instead). Link: Receiver Multicouplers, Passive and Active, HF to VHF/UHF

The Channel Master CM-3212 (see attached picture) 2-way splitter that I recommended is $6. It has a 75-ohm impedance, is rated from 5-1,002 MHz, has a 3.5 dB loss at each of the 2 output ports and has a port-to-port isolation of 35 dB. It uses F connectors in and out. Link: 2 Way Digital Splitter (CM3212) | Channel Master

The bottom line is that for only 8% of the cost ($6 vs $75) you can accomplish the same thing with the Channel Master CM-3212 splitter. The port-to-port isolation specification is actually higher at 35 dB with the Channel Master splitter compared to 25 dB with the Stridsberg MC202. Of course you will have to terminate your cables/coax with F connectors instead of BNC connectors in order to use the Channel Master splitter and use F-to-BNC adapters to connect to your 2 scanners.

Note for full information/disclosure: If you want to avoid the 3.5 dB signal loss of a 2-port passive splitter then you should consider another option that would give you no signal loss at the output ports. As has been mentioned above the Stridsberg MCA202M will accomplish that for $148. As always there are multiple options and solutions, some better and some worse, depending on your allocated budget for your specific project.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top