exactly Scott, it's not being done on the cheap, but you refered to using
the absolute worst possible coaxial cable for your antennas which basically
renders the entire very expensive system down to something far less than it
should be if proper feed line is used.
RG58 has to be about the worst coax you can find, short of rg174, for UHF
frequencies, especially the upper UHF spectrum.
However, this is a classic case that I see so very often in the audio
world...vast amounts of money are spent on connecters, and equipment, and
then they use a 3 dollar cable to connect it all lol.
10K for a wireless receiver and transmitter, probably another 3K for a
microphone, and then a run of rg58 costing around 20 bucks for possibly the
most important part of the whole system, the receiving antenna.
I have a friend, and this is slightly off topic, who spends a great deal of
money and time going after the best of the best in connecters, cables, tubes
and components for his home stereo system. He's spent thousands and
thousands on interconnect cables. Gold, real gold, plated connecters and
pure gold coated jumper cables and on and on. He's gone so far as to put
special electrical outlets, with massive oxygen free cryogenically treated
copper power cables to connect his system to...and it all plugs into regular
good old 12 gage normal everyday copper house hold wire, which then runs
probably 120 feet to the breaker pannel lol. I laughed a great deal when he
told me he had just spent $1000 on a new audiophile electrical outlet, new
monster cable...when I mentioned the whole concept of everything being
plugged into a pair of 12 gage copper wires he didn't want to admit that
it's all snake oil.
anywya, my point is don't cheap out on the most important parts of your
system such as feed line, and connecters etc.
73
Colin, V A6BKX
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Scott Gillen" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:33 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Replacing my coax cable
> I don't think we can be accused of doing this on the cheep. Looking at
> spend=
> ing between $20-$25k on the Wireless rigs alone. On the other side of the
> c=
> oin I had a guy come in the other day with a 2 channel wireless system
> price=
> was around $10K
>
> Scott
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 19/06/2014, at 10:48 AM, Colin McDonald <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> lol, this is true. However, I would wager to guess that probably 80 to
>> 90=
> =20
>> per cent of the hams on the air routinely operate their stations on a
>> hope=
> =20
>> and a prayer and it seems to work. Are they the loudest, nope, can
>> they=20=
>
>> talk where ever, and when ever they want, again, not really, but they
>> have=
> =20
>> fun and put as much doe into the endeavor as they are able.
>> If you can spend 50 bucks on your coax, then that's what you spend...if
>> yo=
> u=20
>> can spend $500 on better coax, then you do.
>> I can spend $300 on an guitar amp, and 300 bucks on a guitar and sound
>> jus=
> t=20
>> fine...or I can spend 3 grand on each piece and sound a whole lot=20
>> better...though at the end of the day, both are rewarding and
>> entertaining=
> .
>>=20
>> 73
>> Colin, V A6BKX
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Alan R. Downing" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:14 PM
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Replacing my coax cable
>>=20
>>> Colin, I have never understood how many hams go for the spit and duct
>>> tap=
> e
>>> approach to repairs and short cuts. Hams are known for being cheap, and
>>> that bothers the hell out of me.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Alan R. Downing
>>> Phoenix, AZ
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: For blind ham radio operators
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ]
>>> On Behalf Of Colin McDonald
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:28 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Replacing my coax cable
>>>=20
>>> Yeah, and you can string a bunch of coat hangers together and it'll
>>> work.=
>
>>> are you after basic make it work with duct tape and haywire, or do
>>> you=20=
>
>>> want
>>> high quality, high performance low loss, low interference stuff that
>>> will=
>
>>> last many years.
>>> Also, you can multi-couple the receivers so you can use one antenna
>>> and=20=
>
>>> one
>>> feed line back to the sound booth instead of having a separate feed
>>> line=20=
>
>>> for
>>>=20
>>> each receiver and antenna.
>>> 73
>>> Colin, V A6BKX
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Scott Gillen" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:04 PM
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Replacing my coax cable
>>>=20
>>>> The reason for having the receivers In the sound booth is so you can
>>>> monitor=3D
>>>> transmitter performance which appears on the front of the receivers. I
>>>> kno=3D
>>>> w sound companies that use 10M RG 58 cables all the time for 700MHz
>>>> systems w=3D
>>>> ith no issues. I'll give Sennheiser a call and see what they say
>>>>=20
>>>> Scott
>>>>=20
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>=20
>>>> On 19/06/2014, at 3:21 AM, Colin McDonald <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote=
> :
>>>>=20
>>>>> I think most of the audio stuff uses BNC style connecters?
>>>>> wireless mikes in a studio with 15 or 20 meters of feed line to an
>>>>> antenna=3D
>>>> =3D20
>>>>> doesn't seem logical to me.
>>>>> If it were me, I'd place the wireless receiver with it's antenna close
>>>>> to=3D20=3D
>>>>=20
>>>>> where the mikes will be used. Then run longer audio cable runs back
>>>>> to=
>
>>>>> th=3D
>>>> e=3D20
>>>>> processing equipment.
>>>>> Sounds to me like you want to place the receivers with the rest of the
>>>>> aud=3D
>>>> io=3D20
>>>>> gear and put antennas close to where the mikes will be used instead.
>>>>> This=3D
>>>> =3D20
>>>>> isn't necesarily the best way. Because you'll be using line level
>>>>> audi=
> o
>>>>> o=3D
>>>> ut=3D20
>>>>> from the receiver, you can get away with fairly long runs of audio
>>>>> cable=3D20=3D
>>>>=20
>>>>> with little signal loss. If you are going to try and run hardline for
>>>>> the=3D
>>>> =3D20
>>>>> antennas, not only will the cable be large and bulky, but it'll
>>>>> be=3D20=
>
>>>>> expensive.
>>>>> Not only that, at 700MHZ, you'll have loss on almost any feed line,=20
>>>>> as=3D20
>>>>> compared with a long audio cable run where you'll have very little
>>>>> loss=
> .
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> just my thoughts.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> 73
>>>>> Colin, V A6BKX
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>> From: "Alan R. Downing" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:51 AM
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Replacing my coax cable
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> At 700 MHz, you really want hard line. I'd go with
>>>>>> Andrew/ComScope=3D=
> 20
>>>>>> LDF4-50A
>>>>>> which is also known as half inch Heliax. Tessco sells it. Also, you
>>>>>> definitely don't want to use PL259's, AKA UHF connectors. You want
>>>>>> at=3D20=3D
>>>>=20
>>>>>> least
>>>>>> N connectors. They are available for all sorts of cable, including
>>>>>> LDF4-50A.
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> HTH
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Alan/KD7GC
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Alan R. Downing
>>>>>> Phoenix, AZ
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: For blind ham radio operators
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> ]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Scott Gillen
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:53 AM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Replacing my coax cable
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Any one know the frequency response of rg313? I'm looking at it for
>>>>>> wireles=3D3D
>>>>>> s microphone receiving antennas in the 700MHz band in a TV studio.
>>>>>> Woul=3D
>>>> d
>>>>>> u=3D3D
>>>>>> se rg58 but the runs are between 15-20 meters and I am told it will
>>>>>> be=
>
>>>>>> to=3D
>>>>=20
>>>>>> lo=3D3D
>>>>>> ssy. It's possible we could end up with units in the 2GHz
>>>>>> band.=3D3D2=
> 0
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> On 18/06/2014, at 3:15 AM, Steve Forst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> Nice theory on the numbering system, but not right. RG-213 is
>>>>>>> the=3D3D2=3D
>>>> 0
>>>>>>> same size as RG-8, which is kind of the "standard" size. Both=20
>>>>>>> of=3D3D20
>>>>>>> these, and a bunch of others in the RG-8 catagory, are just under a
>>>>>> half=3D3D20=3D3D
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> inch diameter. I think .405 inch. A regular PL-259 connector
>>>>>> threads=3D3D20=3D3D
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> onto the jacket without any adapter.
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> For what it's worth, several years ago I redid the station with
>>>>>>> Davis=
>
>>>>>> RF=3D3D20=3D3D
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> Bury-Flex, which is a low loss, direct buryable RG-8 size with a
>>>>>>> super=3D3D=3D
>>>> 20
>>>>>>> tough jacket made of poly something or other.
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> Davis also carries a wide variety of other cables, like Andrews.
>>>>>> They=3D3D20=3D3D
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> are in New England. Coax can be heavy, don't know if shortening
>>>>>>> the=3D3D2=3D
>>>> 0
>>>>>>> distance would save any on shipping compared to getting from
>>>>>> somewhere=3D3D20=3D3D
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> else in the States.
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> davisrf.com
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> 73, Steve KW3A
>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> On 6/17/2014 10:11 AM, Michael Ryan wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all:
>>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>>> As I got to order some tubes from RF Parts, I'm looking at ordering
>>>>>>>> som=3D
>>>> e
>>>>>> r=3D3D
>>>>>> eplacement coax as well as the prices look pretty good.
>>>>>>>> The problem is, I'm not sure on what to order as the site has such
>>>>>>>> a=
>
>>>>>> vari=3D3D
>>>>>> ety from Andrew Heliax to LMR600 and everything in between.
>>>>>>>> I need a direct berry, low loss to replace my RG-213 and I'm=20
>>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>> if=3D3D
>>>>>> the LMR240 will do?
>>>>>>>> I'm thinking that the LMR240 is a little larger than the 213 and
>>>>>>>> that's=3D
>>>>=20
>>>>>> w=3D3D
>>>>>> hat those numbers mean. 213 =3D3D3D .213 of an inch, 240 =3D3D3D .24
>>>>>> o=
> f and
>>>>>> i=3D
>>>> nch
>>>>>> and=3D3D
>>>>>> so on. Therefore the LMR400 or 600 would be a pretty thick cable
>>>>>> and=20=
>
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> re=3D3D
>>>>>> quire me to drill a larger hole to thread it. LOL
>>>>>>>> My current PL-259s fit the exit hole of the shack.
>>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>>> 73:
>>>>>>>> Mike VO1AX
>>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>>> =3D3D20
>>>>>>> =3D3D20=3D20
>>>>> =3D20=20
>>=20
|
