• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Multi. Scanners on 1 Ant.

Status
Not open for further replies.

evilklown

Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
212
Location
Colorado
I was just woundering what would be the best way to run 1 to mabey 4 scanners off one anttena if it is possible to do that? What all i would need, and also when running multi scanners on the same anttenna do you lose any signal or do they all stay about the same amount on the signal? Thanks
 

adkad

Member
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
103
You can get splitters that allow you to do at least two scanners on one antenna and Radio Shack used to sell one. You can get them on the internet I know. I don't know about more than two, but for two I don't think you would loose much if anything.
adkad
 

Halfpint

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
949
Location
Slightly NE of the People's Republic of Firestone
luke-1 said:
Stridsberg Engineering makes a great multi-coupler-

www.stridsberg.com

Model #'s MCA202M for 2 radios
MCA204M for 4 radios

Luke
Another vote for Stridsberg products.

I've got a dozen different scanners currently feeding off of a single antenna, I wish I didn't have to do it but until we *finally* can get moved that's that, via a MCA202M and a pair of MCA802Ms. (I've got the unused ports terminated with 50ohm terminators to help keep the isolation between all the ports and also keep down any other unwanted `effects'.) Because they are all `active' I basically have "zero" losses in my signals along with no untoward ill effects or interactions between scanners. I also have a MCA104M for my collection of HF radios, too. They are *well* worth what they cost.

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {GRIN!}
 

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
Halfpint said:
Another vote for Stridsberg products.

I've got a dozen different scanners currently feeding off of a single antenna, I wish I didn't have to do it but until we *finally* can get moved that's that, via a MCA202M and a pair of MCA802Ms. (I've got the unused ports terminated with 50ohm terminators to help keep the isolation between all the ports and also keep down any other unwanted `effects'.) Because they are all `active' I basically have "zero" losses in my signals along with no untoward ill effects or interactions between scanners. I also have a MCA104M for my collection of HF radios, too. They are *well* worth what they cost.

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {GRIN!}
And to throw another $0.01 worth in, myself and at least one other person here have found the terminators make no difference as far as output on the in-use ports on the active Stridsberg multicouplers (MCAxxxM). But, everyone's environments vary as does mileage.
 

evilklown

Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
212
Location
Colorado
Halfpint said:
Another vote for Stridsberg products.

I've got a dozen different scanners currently feeding off of a single antenna, I wish I didn't have to do it but until we *finally* can get moved that's that, via a MCA202M and a pair of MCA802Ms. (I've got the unused ports terminated with 50ohm terminators to help keep the isolation between all the ports and also keep down any other unwanted `effects'.) Because they are all `active' I basically have "zero" losses in my signals along with no untoward ill effects or interactions between scanners. I also have a MCA104M for my collection of HF radios, too. They are *well* worth what they cost.

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {GRIN!}
wow are they all this high in price this is what i have found first off on my research
http://www.stridsberg.com/mca204a.htm thanks for you help.
 

Halfpint

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
949
Location
Slightly NE of the People's Republic of Firestone
RISC777 said:
And to throw another $0.01 worth in, myself and at least one other person here have found the terminators make no difference as far as output on the in-use ports on the active Stridsberg multicouplers (MCAxxxM). But, everyone's environments vary as does mileage.
I tried it both ways myself and found out that I noticed enough of a difference to use them. I mainly mentioned using them because it's better to know about using them than to be surprised that one actually does need them and one wasn't told about them `up front'. {GRIN!} Besides, they are basically cheap `insurance'.

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth... again. {VB GRIN!}
 

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
Halfpint said:
I tried it both ways myself and found out that I noticed enough of a difference to use them. I mainly mentioned using them because it's better to know about using them than to be surprised that one actually does need them and one wasn't told about them `up front'. {GRIN!} Besides, they are basically cheap `insurance'.

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth... again. {VB GRIN!}
That's good to know, and a good point on the up front aspect. So at least you're one person that's experienced a noticeable change with and without term.s on the open ports. (Especially since we don't all have at our hands many dollars worth of the proper test equipment. ~grin~)

All of mine are in use, so I think I'll pull one or two off and see if things have changed since the last time I looked at this for myself and see if I notice anything. I guess if you use all ports it's kind of a moot point.

I suppose it's the what I have and experience may not necessarily mean the exact same for you where you are situation. Mileage varies.
 

evilklown

Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
212
Location
Colorado
I didnt have any luck with this thing i was sold this at radio shack in brighton he said it wouldnt lose any signal i have had horrible luck with it has anyone else used this and had it work affectivly? Sorry its the second one to the right i put the wrong one on here the first time oops. :)
 

Attachments

Last edited:

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
Kevin,

You're going to get a lot of loss going that route. Splitting with no amplification means loss. There are some less expensive than Stridsberg 2- or 3-ways I remember seeing somewhere, but what you'll get with the items you posted pics of is only going to be frustration.

That RS guy did not have a clue what he was talking about, or he outright lied to you.

It's too bad it's not that easy, but that's the thing...it's just not that easy.

`Doug
 

evilklown

Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
212
Location
Colorado
RISC777 said:
Kevin,

You're going to get a lot of loss going that route. Splitting with no amplification means loss. There are some less expensive than Stridsberg 2- or 3-ways I remember seeing somewhere, but what you'll get with the items you posted pics of is only going to be frustration.

That RS guy did not have a clue what he was talking about, or he outright lied to you.

It's too bad it's not that easy, but that's the thing...it's just not that easy.

`Doug
Thanks doug for the post i had actully bought that T about a month back because i was using 2 scanners and thats what he sold me it seemd like he wasnt to sure about radios but there is alot of loss with that T i just wanted to see if there was somthing i was missing with that T but now i know there is nothing giving it the amp. now i know what i am going to be getting into with the splitting but i am glad i have the right information so when i get started with the splitting. Thanks agian doug................ what do they usally use the T's for anyway because they have alot of loss with it one my scanners wouldnt even get any percent on the ant. just curious :)
 

rc104a

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
73
those BNC T's are (were) used for 10BaseT coax networking.
I have the opposite problem, I have a BC796 and a lo-hi-uhf mobile antenna that works quite well as designed but only about 5 miles on 868 MHz. I put a BNC connector on an old analog 900 MHz cell phone antenna and tried it on the 796 mobile, works quite well, some towers 30-40 miles away like Paonia to Raspberry and Storm King. But then I miss all the VHF stuff. Was thinking of trying the BNC T and adding both antennas to one radio. Also have a 2-2000 MHz splitter but would have to buy a bunch of F to BNC adapters. Anyone tried that?
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,620
Location
AOA
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin! you didn't come see me why??? J/K!

This is one of the, "you can't have your cake and eat it too" things. It will cost some money to do it right...
 

JohnWayne

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
242
Location
Lynchburg, VA
rc104a said:
those BNC T's are (were) used for 10BaseT coax networking.
I have the opposite problem, I have a BC796 and a lo-hi-uhf mobile antenna that works quite well as designed but only about 5 miles on 868 MHz. I put a BNC connector on an old analog 900 MHz cell phone antenna and tried it on the 796 mobile, works quite well, some towers 30-40 miles away like Paonia to Raspberry and Storm King. But then I miss all the VHF stuff. Was thinking of trying the BNC T and adding both antennas to one radio. Also have a 2-2000 MHz splitter but would have to buy a bunch of F to BNC adapters. Anyone tried that?
I wrote an article that describes one way to tackle your problem. You can read it by clicking here.

Now that my life is less compliclated, I think I am going to attempt to write one article per week on various topics including RF and scanning. Article topic suggestions are welcome.

Jeff
 

evilklown

Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
212
Location
Colorado
abqscan said:
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin! you didn't come see me why??? J/K!

This is one of the, "you can't have your cake and eat it too" things. It will cost some money to do it right...
I would have loved to come out and see ya but man that is a heck of a drive lol, what happened was, i was talking to this guy about it so he seems like he knew what i wanted, but its ok. do you have what i will need at your store out there Erik so when i get the money togther i can have you hook me up??
Thanks Kevin
 

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
evilklown said:
Thanks doug for the post i had actully bought that T about a month back because i was using 2 scanners and thats what he sold me it seemd like he wasnt to sure about radios but there is alot of loss with that T i just wanted to see if there was somthing i was missing with that T but now i know there is nothing giving it the amp. now i know what i am going to be getting into with the splitting but i am glad i have the right information so when i get started with the splitting. Thanks agian doug................ what do they usally use the T's for anyway because they have alot of loss with it one my scanners wouldnt even get any percent on the ant. just curious :)
I've been out of touch a while due to my youngest being in the ER and then in surgery and a stay at the hospital. Apologies for lost time.


Yes, as stated by rc104a, those type Ts were used a LOT when networks used coaxial cable (and they had about 2mb per second line speed as compared to CAT5e with 10mb per second - and any network line's total bandwidth typically gets you 70% of the rated total line speed, but that's another topic).

As JohnWayne posted his link to his write-up about a triplexer, that's good info for you.

Looking at this from the viewpoint that you want one antenna to feed two receivers, or one receiver at two points, a switch would work but that requires a manual turn of a knob to choose which line is in use. Maybe not as easy as you want it to be.

What would suit your need the best would be a way to split two or more ways with no loss. The decision making will be budget and what you can afford with that budget. I would suggest an active multicoupler, 2- or 4-port. But others here will have suggestions on solutions for you also. For example, a Stridsberg active 4-port multicoupler (# MCA204M) is going to run you around $185; I've got a 4- and an 8-port that I consider well worth their cost. (They also can be used in a vehicle in that they're 12VDC, but AC supplied via a wall wart/AC adapter.)

I've got to find the link or info, but there's a 2- or 3-way 'splitter' of some kind that people here have used with some success. (Unless you've already gotten a working solution in place.)

`Doug
 

epbernstein

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
298
Location
Boulder, CO
RISC777 said:
Kevin,

You're going to get a lot of loss going that route. Splitting with no amplification means loss. There are some less expensive than Stridsberg 2- or 3-ways I remember seeing somewhere, but what you'll get with the items you posted pics of is only going to be frustration.

That RS guy did not have a clue what he was talking about, or he outright lied to you.

It's too bad it's not that easy, but that's the thing...it's just not that easy.

`Doug
So am I kidding myself with this set-up?

IMG_0777.jpg IMG_0778.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top