We will be using one cable for each of 2 Diversity antennas which will feed into a amp splitter and feed about 12 receivers.
Scott
Sent from my iPhone
On 19/06/2014, at 9:27 AM, Colin McDonald <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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 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 one
> feed line back to the sound booth instead of having a separate feed line for
> 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
>
>> The reason for having the receivers In the sound booth is so you can
>> monitor=
>> transmitter performance which appears on the front of the receivers. I
>> kno=
>> w sound companies that use 10M RG 58 cables all the time for 700MHz
>> systems w=
>> ith no issues. I'll give Sennheiser a call and see what they say
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 19/06/2014, at 3:21 AM, Colin McDonald <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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=
>> =20
>>> doesn't seem logical to me.
>>> If it were me, I'd place the wireless receiver with it's antenna close
>>> to=20=
>>
>>> where the mikes will be used. Then run longer audio cable runs back to
>>> th=
>> e=20
>>> processing equipment.
>>> Sounds to me like you want to place the receivers with the rest of the
>>> aud=
>> io=20
>>> gear and put antennas close to where the mikes will be used instead.
>>> This=
>> =20
>>> isn't necesarily the best way. Because you'll be using line level audio
>>> o=
>> ut=20
>>> from the receiver, you can get away with fairly long runs of audio
>>> cable=20=
>>
>>> with little signal loss. If you are going to try and run hardline for
>>> the=
>> =20
>>> antennas, not only will the cable be large and bulky, but it'll be=20
>>> expensive.
>>> Not only that, at 700MHZ, you'll have loss on almost any feed line, as=20
>>> compared with a long audio cable run where you'll have very little loss.
>>> =20
>>> just my thoughts.
>>> =20
>>> 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
>>> =20
>>>> At 700 MHz, you really want hard line. I'd go with Andrew/ComScope=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=20=
>>
>>>> least
>>>> N connectors. They are available for all sorts of cable, including
>>>> LDF4-50A.
>>>> =20
>>>> HTH
>>>> =20
>>>> Alan/KD7GC
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> Alan R. Downing
>>>> Phoenix, AZ
>>>> =20
>>>> -----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
>>>> =20
>>>> Any one know the frequency response of rg313? I'm looking at it for
>>>> wireles=3D
>>>> s microphone receiving antennas in the 700MHz band in a TV studio.
>>>> Woul=
>> d
>>>> u=3D
>>>> se rg58 but the runs are between 15-20 meters and I am told it will be
>>>> to=
>>
>>>> lo=3D
>>>> ssy. It's possible we could end up with units in the 2GHz band.=3D20
>>>> =20
>>>> Scott
>>>> =20
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> =20
>>>> On 18/06/2014, at 3:15 AM, Steve Forst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> Nice theory on the numbering system, but not right. RG-213 is
>>>>> the=3D2=
>> 0
>>>>> same size as RG-8, which is kind of the "standard" size. Both of=3D20
>>>>> these, and a bunch of others in the RG-8 catagory, are just under a
>>>> half=3D20=3D
>>>> =20
>>>>> inch diameter. I think .405 inch. A regular PL-259 connector
>>>> threads=3D20=3D
>>>> =20
>>>>> onto the jacket without any adapter.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> For what it's worth, several years ago I redid the station with Davis
>>>> RF=3D20=3D
>>>> =20
>>>>> Bury-Flex, which is a low loss, direct buryable RG-8 size with a
>>>>> super=3D=
>> 20
>>>>> tough jacket made of poly something or other.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> Davis also carries a wide variety of other cables, like Andrews.
>>>> They=3D20=3D
>>>> =20
>>>>> are in New England. Coax can be heavy, don't know if shortening
>>>>> the=3D2=
>> 0
>>>>> distance would save any on shipping compared to getting from
>>>> somewhere=3D20=3D
>>>> =20
>>>>> else in the States.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> davisrf.com
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> 73, Steve KW3A
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> On 6/17/2014 10:11 AM, Michael Ryan wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all:
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> As I got to order some tubes from RF Parts, I'm looking at ordering
>>>>>> som=
>> e
>>>> r=3D
>>>> 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=3D
>>>> 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 wondering
>>>> if=3D
>>>> the LMR240 will do?
>>>>>> I'm thinking that the LMR240 is a little larger than the 213 and
>>>>>> that's=
>>
>>>> w=3D
>>>> hat those numbers mean. 213 =3D3D .213 of an inch, 240 =3D3D .24 of and
>>>> i=
>> nch
>>>> and=3D
>>>> so on. Therefore the LMR400 or 600 would be a pretty thick cable and may
>>>> re=3D
>>>> quire me to drill a larger hole to thread it. LOL
>>>>>> My current PL-259s fit the exit hole of the shack.
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> 73:
>>>>>> Mike VO1AX
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> =3D20=20
>>> =20
>
|