Just got back from Colorado Springs. It just seems wrong that it takes
a whole day each way to travel there!
Are you talking about the taps off a dist amp? Or is this a device I
haven't heard of? Because it sounds good.
The problem I'm having most is that there is too much return loss.
Well, I've rewired a bit to help the problem, but from what I
understand, the modem has internal gain that is remotely selected to
overcome return loss, but it has only so much and when it hits the top
end, then there can be dropout problems. I've read where they say that
gain tends to go up with temperature, but they never say the temperature
of what. The modem is in an air-conditioned enviroment and all the
cabling in the neighborhood is underground which I believe will limit
the effects of temperature.
Steve
maccrawj wrote:
Cable modem should be on 1st *tap*, no later.
Taps should be used instead of splitters, working from highest to lowest
attenuation as you run down a cable segment.
If splitting, do it sooner rather than later.
Distribution amps have 0 insertion loss, unlike splitters.
Taps are unbalanced splitters that attenuate one leg but not the other.
Advantage? Nearer devices get just what they need leaving more db left
over going to devices further down the segment.
Greg Sevart wrote:
If all of your runs come back to one place, I'd chuck all of the
splitters
and get a single amp. Not just any amp--the stuff you can usually find
locally typically inserts so much noise that you're better off w/o an
amp at
all.
http://www.cabletvamps.com/drop%20amps.htm
Electroline amps are considered to be among the best available. They
do have
one model with 0 return loss.
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Tomporowski
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:29 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [H] Cable Modems & Splitters
*snip*
Okay, does any of this make sense? What have I got wrong? Also, would
a low return loss amp be the best bet?
Any suggestions greatly appreciated!
Thanks....Steve
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4337 (20090815) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 4337 (20090815) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
