Stridesburg MCA208M

[ltginrage]

Hello all,

I'm looking at purchasing the MCA208M from Stridesburg Engineering. I would like to make sure it will work with minimal loss on VHF, UHF, and 700/800. I bought the MC204 a few months and it worked with close to no loss on VHF & UHF but was horrible on 700/800 bands. Does anyone that has a MCA208M know how good it is on the 700/800 bands?

Thanks in advance

 

[Ubbe]

If you have problem with the 204 you will have the same with 208 as they are identical except having 8 port instead of 4 port and don't have to attenuate the signal as much when feeding the internal splitters as 8 outputs will attenuate more compared to 4. The amplifier in it and performance will be the same.

When you used your 204, was performance restored when bypassing the 204 and used the antenna coax directly to a scanner and tested each one of your scanners? It should be a pretty much 0dB signal difference from input to output in a 204/208 over its whole 25-1000MHz range.

My experience with the 204 are that it overloads easily. If a insert a variable attenuator between 204 and scanner when I hear overload issues I can add attenuation but nothing changes. If I insert the attenuator between antenna and 204 and just add a few dB attenuation then full performance are restored. So it is the 204 that overloads, not the scanner.

/Ubbe

 

[ltginrage]

If you have problem with the 204 you will have the same with 208 as they are identical except having 8 port instead of 4 port and don't have to attenuate the signal as much when feeding the internal splitters as 8 outputs will attenuate more compared to 4. The amplifier in it and performance will be the same.

There wasn't an amplifier on the MC204 which is one of the main reasons for me asking

When you used your 204, was performance restored when bypassing the 204 and used the antenna coax directly to a scanner and tested each one of your scanners? It should be a pretty much 0dB signal difference from input to output in a 204/208 over its whole 25-1000MHz range.

Yes. I took the MC204 off and instantly start receiving systems in the 700/800 range. When I had it on there I could barely receive the P25 site that is a few miles from me

 

[tvengr]

I have two MCA204M's and they both work great on 700/800. I suspect you may have an antenna problem. If you are using a discone, they can be terrible on higher frequencies.

 

[ltginrage]

I have two MCA204M's and they both work great on 700/800. I suspect you may have an antenna problem. If you are using a discone, they can be terrible on higher frequencies.

I am using a Larsen Triband antenna (Link)

 

[tvengr]

What coax are you using and what is its length?

 

[ltginrage]

Its RG6 Quad shield. Dont remember the brand. Its around 115ft.

 

[dlwtrunked]

If you have problem with the 204 you will have the same with 208 as they are identical except having 8 port instead of 4 port and don't have to attenuate the signal as much when feeding the internal splitters as 8 outputs will attenuate more compared to 4. The amplifier in it and performance will be the same.

When you used your 204, was performance restored when bypassing the 204 and used the antenna coax directly to a scanner and tested each one of your scanners? It should be a pretty much 0dB signal difference from input to output in a 204/208 over its whole 25-1000MHz range.

My experience with the 204 are that it overloads easily. If a insert a variable attenuator between 204 and scanner when I hear overload issues I can add attenuation but nothing changes. If I insert the attenuator between antenna and 204 and just add a few dB attenuation then full performance are restored. So it is the 204 that overloads, not the scanner.

/Ubbe

You must mean the MCA204M as the MCA204 is passive and cannot possibly overload.

 

[buddrousa]

Ubbe hates Stridsbergs As I have 4 204m's and 2 208m's and they all work great Ubbe will tell you that a TV Splitter and TV amp is great I tried that did not work good at all He also will tell you how bad the SDS scanners are but does not have one last I knew.

 

[ltginrage]

Ubbe hates Stridsbergs As I have 4 204m's and 2 208m's and they all work great Ubbe will tell you that a TV Splitter and TV amp is great I tried that did not work good at all He also will tell you how bad the SDS scanners are but does not have one last I knew.

Any problems on 700/800?

 

[sonm10]

Ubbe hates Stridsbergs As I have 4 204m's and 2 208m's and they all work great Ubbe will tell you that a TV Splitter and TV amp is great I tried that did not work good at all He also will tell you how bad the SDS scanners are but does not have one last I knew.

For the record, a splitter and an amp works well for me - per @Ubbe advice

 

[ind224]

I'm a cheap used Electroline EDA2400 maven; never had a Stridsburg or needed the att. but I can see price being a hating point.

 

[Ubbe]

There wasn't an amplifier on the MC204 which is one of the main reasons for me asking

That passive splitter, as will the M version, attenuates more at higher frequencies and are some 8,5dB at 800Mhz in the passive splitter, almost 10 times lower signal. If you want to receive signals that aren't super strong you'll need to put an amplifier between antenna and splitter. I would suggest to still use that 204, you already have it, but buy a good preamplifier and install at the antenna, that will work better than amplifying down at the splitter. You compensate for coax attenuation, get a steady impedance in the coax and a constant 50 ohm load to the antenna, improve the signal to noise ratio, all positive things if you have the amplifier at the antenna.

If not wanting to get a good quality $50 amplifier with better strong handling and lower noise, then use Stridsbergs own PRE-20 with a noise figure of 3,5 and IP3 of 24dB, which is terrible for a $170 amplifier.

/Ubbe

 

[buddrousa]

Any problems on 700/800?

40 plus air miles on 700 TACN sites with a ST2 27 feet above the ground fairly flat ground in my West Tn area.