Re: high-def over the air



Mark A wrote:
"UCLAN" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0YD6l.12411$gY5.9595@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Why a 2GHz splitter for HD? No HD carriers exist past 750MHz. Why is HD
more critical in this regard than is SD?

I suppose that I was mistaken in saying that 2 GHz is needed for off-the-air HD, but it usually is needed for HD on cable and satellite systems. A friend of mine had a problem with most of the HD stations from his cable system, and replacing the old splitter with a 2 GHz version solved the problem.

If it were me, I would put in a 2 GHz splitter even for off-the-air since it is only a few dollars more, and I have no way of knowing whether the OP's old splitter can even handle 750 MHz.

For cable TV systems, 1 GHz splitter is adequate. Most cable TV
systems are limited to 864 MHz (physical RF cable channel 135) and use
the frequency space just above above that for the internet
communications. Comcast is upgrading their systems to provide for cable
frequencies up to 1 GHz, but a 1 GHz splitter should still do the trick.
Only for DBS satellite systems is a 2 GHz splitter needed. However, the
high frequencies above 800 to 900 MHz can be problematic if the house
has RG-59 or older co-axial cable installed.

Alan F



.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: high-def over the air
    ... but it usually is needed for HD on cable and satellite systems. ... A friend of mine had a problem with most of the HD stations from his cable system, and replacing the old splitter with a 2 GHz version solved the problem. ... If it were me, I would put in a 2 GHz splitter even for off-the-air since it is only a few dollars more, and I have no way of knowing whether the OP's old splitter can even handle 750 MHz. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)
  • Re: high-def over the air
    ... splitter's loss is only 3.5dB? ... If it was at all frequencies, then I would reconsider, if I knew for sure ... that the 1 GHz splitter would work, and that a 2 GHz splitter would never be ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)