# Recommended fix for HR10-250 improve OTA signal strength



## Richard Chalk

OK, I have three of these bad boys, and like many others, I have found the off-air reception somewhat lacking. I noticed a comment last week about someone replacing the internal RF cables between the input splitter and the two tuners, so I decided to give it a try.

Before I did this, I took note that the signal readings for the two tuners were about 68-72, not equal, and varying constantly. Wiggling the cables where they exit the splitter caused them to jump around from 50's to 80's.

I removed both cables (which look to be RG-59 or similar). These have an "F" connector on the tuner end, and an "RCA" plug on the splitter end.

I purchased two adapters, type-F female to RCA male, and fabricated two cables out of RG-6, whith professional compression-type F connectors on both ends.

When these cables were installed, with the adapters at the outputs of the splitter, and making NO OTHER CHANGES, the signal strengths were at 90-92, with almost no variation, and with no changes due to wiggling or flexing the cables.

The adapters make it a little difficult to run the cables if you have a second hard drive installed over the circuit board, but it is possible to run the lower one under the drive, and the upper one over the top of the drive, without too much stress on the connectors.

I am about to buy more adapters, and tackle the other two units tomorrow.

My recording performance is much, much better.
  

Regards,
Richard


----------



## chewboxa

Do you have any pics to speak of? Maybe you could take a before and after picture of the next box... thanks for your letting us in on this project!


----------



## old7

Rather than using f-to-RCA adapters you might try RCA compression connectors. They are more expensive than f connectors, but they will work much better for the purpose.

-Old7


----------



## Richard Chalk

chewboxa said:


> Do you have any pics to speak of? Maybe you could take a before and after picture of the next box... thanks for your letting us in on this project!


Sorry, I didn't think to take pictures, but if you take the top off your unit, it should be pretty self-explanatory.


----------



## Richard Chalk

old7 said:


> Rather than using f-to-RCA adapters you might try RCA compression connectors. They are more expensive than f connectors, but they will work much better for the purpose.
> 
> -Old7


This is probably true, but I didn't have any, and can not find a source to buy small quantities. The adapters came from Radio Shack.

Just to clarify, I tried a separate splitter with F connectors and cables, and the results were the same, so the internal splitter is not a problem, nor are the adapters.


----------



## MarcusInMD

I tried the same thing with my HR10 and it made no difference. The OTA signal stayed the same, poor. I used quality compression fittings too.


----------



## aaronwt

My signal is the same on all 3 units, excellent. When I tried a different cable last year in one of the units it made no difference, the signal was still good. What made the most differnce with me was the antenna.


----------



## k2ue

This sort of "fix" is always anecdotal -- if you wrote out the expression for the effect of every component in the system on the Carrier-to-Noise Ratio at the detector (and hence signal strength and picture performance), the little piece representing the loss due to attenuation and/or mismatch by those internal cables would need to change enormously -- from so bad nobody would have done it in the first place, to negligible -- to have any significant effect on reception. This is because the whole system is expressly designed so that small variations _at that point in the system_ will have little effect. Only if the two internal receivers are clearly different, i.e. one has a truly defective component, will such changes produce predictably large results -- and that's just because it's a _repair_ of something _broken_.


----------



## TyroneShoes

Huh?

Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. I think we have to assume that the internal RF distribution amp module is there because the engineers who designed this thing put it there for an express purpose. Typically that would be to provide the tuner with a signal level comparable to what it would see were the RF cable connected directly (IOW, unity gain), and possibly to buffer the signal to keep the VSWR down to a dull roar (after all, 8VSB abhors reflections).

But in practice, it doesn't always seem to be working out so well, and sometimes this workaround actually makes things better, and sometimes it doesn't.

I can think of a few reasons possibly why:

1. They designed too much gain into the RFDA. That would explain why the HR10 overloads in strong signal situations, and might explain why an external splitter actually works better. This is exactly why anyone who is thinking of trying this should try an external splitter first, before ever cracking the case. If level is the issue, a splitter can often fix that.

2. If not in a strong signal scenario, it makes sense that lowering the signal by bypassing the RFDA and adding a splitter will not improve things. If multipath is the culprit, playing with the levels will be of little to no help. This could explain the varying levels of success.

3. The RCA connections on the output of the RFDA are not locking connectors. They can work loose in shipment, which could cause a lot of the problems folks are reporting, including varying levels that don't match on both tuners, even when the tuners themselves might be working just fine. Before going so far as to bypass the RFDA, try exercising these connectors first. This could also explain the varying levels of success.


----------



## MarcusInMD

I believe #2 to be our problem. The only thing that can fix multipath issues from distant signals is a better tuner (better in the sense that it is designed better to eliminate this kind of problem with a new gerenation tuner chip). Fortunatly for us the VIP622 has an excellent tuner and it resolves the issue as did my LG OTA tuner.


----------



## Richard Chalk

OK, everyone, I didn't mean to create controversy over this. If you have a crappy signal, it will be crappy, and if you have a very strong signal, it will overcome significant losses, and still be strong.

In my case, out of three DVRs (6 cables) all but two were erratic, and flexing the cable at the end next to the RCA plug caused huge variations in signal strength readings, which leads me to believe that this cable is prone to problems. 

The RCA plugs were not loose, and in fact had been unplugged and reconnected several times, with no improvement. The fact that replacing them with better cables corrected the situation in 4 out of 4 cases further suggests that the cables are prone to problems.

I did not mean to suggest that this fix could correct for weak or multipath signal problems. I only meant that it might improve receiver performance in cases where there was a problem of the kind I encountered.


----------



## sgirard

My oldest HR10-250 has slowly lost reception on the OTA tuners over the last year.  Interestingly, one tuner lost reception faster than the other and it had gotten to the point that I couldn't watch anything using one of the OTA tuners. Watching using the other tuner was "iffy" at best. It made trying to record anything over-the-air futile. I had seen other threads that recommended bypassing the internal splitter and running new RG6 directly to the internal tuners, but hadn't gotten around to trying it.

After reading this thread, I did exactly as prescribed and replaced the internal coax wires between the internal splitter and the internal tuner connections with new RG6 coax, new radial compression f-connectors, and two RCA to F adapters (I would have liked to use crimp-on RCA connectors, but I didn't have any handy).

I put it all back together, turned it on, and IT WORKED! Yeah!

Now I am getting solid, consistent signal strength on both tuners, and can use my OTA tuners again. Thanks so much for posting this tip, and I hope it helps others. To those who say this is anecdotal or there is no technical reason why replacing the cables should work, all I can say is it worked for me. 

P.S. The factory supplied internal cables are el-cheapo.


----------



## thecrave

VERY interesting development (as I slap myself in the back of the head and think "how come *I* didn't think of that?")

Could be an interesting find.

I'm very curious about the splitter as well. Couple of options here. Feel free to add more or tell me I'm off base.

1) Make new RG6 leads, same length as original, to existing splitter as described above, cover, observe change (already done, nice job OP).

2) Make new RG6 leads, same length as original, to NEW high quality splitter (3.5 db loss 2-way), directly to antenna, cover (as much as possible), observe change, if any.

3) Make new RG6 leads, as small as possible to a NEW high quality splitter (3.5 db loss 2-way), directly to antenna, cover (as much as possible), observe change.

If #3 yields the best results (minimizing the exposure of TWO RG6 leads inside the box, create a 3rd lead along with a male/male adapter w/ nut and washer and new hole in the case to "clean-it-up."

If #2 yields the best results, maybe drill a hole to the right (looking from the back) of the existing splitter and mount the new splitter w/ a nut and washer on both sides.

Now if only Radio Shack were open at 12:30 AM.  I'll try in the AM.


----------



## poppagene

In my case number 1 didn't improve the situation, so I went with #3 which made a big difference for me (as noted in other posts). Actually what I did was to use 2 male to male f connectors to directly join the splitter to the 2 ATSC tuners inside the hr10-250. I fed an rg6 cable through a vent hole on the bottom and attached a noncompression f connector and ran it to the new internal splitter.



thecrave said:


> VERY interesting development (as I slap myself in the back of the head and think "how come *I* didn't think of that?")
> 
> Could be an interesting find.
> 
> I'm very curious about the splitter as well. Couple of options here. Feel free to add more or tell me I'm off base.
> 
> 1) Make new RG6 leads, same length as original, to existing splitter as described above, cover, observe change (already done, nice job OP).
> 
> 2) Make new RG6 leads, same length as original, to NEW high quality splitter (3.5 db loss 2-way), directly to antenna, cover (as much as possible), observe change, if any.
> 
> 3) Make new RG6 leads, as small as possible to a NEW high quality splitter (3.5 db loss 2-way), directly to antenna, cover (as much as possible), observe change.
> 
> If #3 yields the best results (minimizing the exposure of TWO RG6 leads inside the box, create a 3rd lead along with a male/male adapter w/ nut and washer and new hole in the case to "clean-it-up."
> 
> If #2 yields the best results, maybe drill a hole to the right (looking from the back) of the existing splitter and mount the new splitter w/ a nut and washer on both sides.
> 
> Now if only Radio Shack were open at 12:30 AM.  I'll try in the AM.


----------



## thecrave

poppagene said:


> In my case number 1 didn't improve the situation, so I went with #3 which made a big difference for me (as noted in other posts). Actually what I did was to use 2 male to male f connectors to directly join the splitter to the 2 ATSC tuners inside the hr10-250. I fed an rg6 cable through a vent hole on the bottom and attached a noncompression f connector and ran it to the new internal splitter.


Excellent, I was wondering if the space between the tuners would match up with the space between a new splitter. Good find!

How big was the improvement? 70s-90s?


----------



## bpratt

About a month after buying my HR10-250, I installed an additional 300 G drive kit from WeaKnees. Installation of the drive requires that you disconnect the two cables going to the OTA tuners. When I put it back together and powered up the system, one of my OTA tuners had a significantly reduced signal. To fix the problem, I removed the cover and re-seated the two connectors I had removed.

Using the original cables, and after about two years, I still get a signal strength of 94 or 95 on both OTA tuners.


----------



## Lee L

I need to do this soon. I have one tuner that is bad on only a couple of frequecies, while the other tuner works just fine.


----------



## Sir_winealot

TyroneShoes said:


> Huh?
> 
> Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. I think we have to assume that the internal RF distribution amp module is there because the engineers who designed this thing put it there for an express purpose. Typically that would be to provide the tuner with a signal level comparable to what it would see were the RF cable connected directly (IOW, unity gain), and possibly to buffer the signal to keep the VSWR down to a dull roar (after all, 8VSB abhors reflections).
> 
> But in practice, it doesn't always seem to be working out so well, and sometimes this workaround actually makes things better, and sometimes it doesn't.
> 
> I can think of a few reasons possibly why:
> 
> 1. They designed too much gain into the RFDA. That would explain why the HR10 overloads in strong signal situations, and might explain why an external splitter actually works better. This is exactly why anyone who is thinking of trying this should try an external splitter first, before ever cracking the case. If level is the issue, a splitter can often fix that.
> 
> 2. If not in a strong signal scenario, it makes sense that lowering the signal by bypassing the RFDA and adding a splitter will not improve things. If multipath is the culprit, playing with the levels will be of little to no help. This could explain the varying levels of success.
> 
> 3. The RCA connections on the output of the RFDA are not locking connectors. They can work loose in shipment, which could cause a lot of the problems folks are reporting, including varying levels that don't match on both tuners, even when the tuners themselves might be working just fine. Before going so far as to bypass the RFDA, try exercising these connectors first. This could also explain the varying levels of success.


If they designed too much gain into the RFDA, what would be the result of splitting the signal while increasing the gain _again_ at the source of the split?

I have added a splitter with an adjustable gain, and turned the gain up to _maximum_. If there's too much gain already within the unit ...could this result in signal problems (and should the gain at the splitter be reduced?)?


----------



## mikeg_ms

I also have been bashing my head against the OTA tuner since day 1. When I added the drive from Weaknees, I must have tightend it something because it worked great. When the primary drive recently died, I had terrible OTA on one tuner. What I ended up doing was loosening the case screws and partially sliding the case off. Voila. Not had a problem since. It's connection related and I know that having the case loose isn't the best, but it works, so why mess with it?


----------



## shaown

anyone with success wanna make me a pair of these? (for cash of course!)
-Shaown


----------



## Mous3

Why did Tivo/Directv design the OTA connection to be RG6 off the antenna, into a splitter that comes RCA, with a cable that is RCA on one end and RG6 on the other? Why not go RG6 end to end?


----------



## litzdog911

Mous3 said:


> Why did Tivo/Directv design the OTA connection to be RG6 off the antenna, into a splitter that comes RCA, with a cable that is RCA on one end and RG6 on the other? Why not go RG6 end to end?


It's actually rather common to see RCA jacks used for interconnects in RF electronics. Probably because they're faster to assemble (push on vs. screw on).


----------



## rminsk

The RCA connector was designed for audio and has horrible impendence for video. The reason it made it to video was the RCA connectors where much cheaper to assemble on the original VCR.


----------



## poppagene

thecrave said:


> Excellent, I was wondering if the space between the tuners would match up with the space between a new splitter. Good find!
> 
> How big was the improvement? 70s-90s?


The improvement on several channels was substantial. My problem was not just weak signal, but also widely flucuating signal that is bouncing between 0 and 50 and routinely differnt signal strength for each of the two internal ATSC tuners. The difference for me was that signals that bounced between 0 and 50 were now coming in between 55-75 with the same strength on each tuner. Previously watchable signals that had ranged between 65 - 80 are now coming in at 95-100% strength. Your mileage may vary with this approach, but it worked for me. Also, you will find that not all splitters will line up directly with the have the ATSC tuners so you may need to do a bit of measuring.


----------



## shendley

I tried replacing the coax today with rg6 and an adapter for F to RCA connection. It was fun getting into the box for the first time, but didn't really do anything for my signal strength. I have seen one problem, though, where on two occasions I've had good signal strength on one tuner and zero on the other. I'm gonna leave the new coax in for a while to see if that problem goes away.


----------



## thecrave

shendley said:


> I tried replacing the coax today with rg6 and an adapter for F to RCA connection. It was fun getting into the box for the first time, but didn't really do anything for my signal strength. I have seen one problem, though, where on two occasions I've had good signal strength on one tuner and zero on the other. I'm gonna leave the new coax in for a while to see if that problem goes away.


I noticed that too. I'm thinking it may be caused by a short, or moving around the tuners. I put everything back the way I wanted it after testing and did a RESTART and everything came back normal.


----------



## Mous3

Why are you guys getting the f to rca connector? Why not replace the splitter and go RG6 all the way?


----------



## Mark W

Anybody have any pictures they can share that would show this issue/fix?


----------



## Richard Chalk

Mous3 said:


> Why are you guys getting the f to rca connector? Why not replace the splitter and go RG6 all the way?


The internal splitter is soldered to the main board of the unit. To remove it means taking out the board and unsoldering it, which could be done, but I decided to try the adapters, since I had them on hand. The result was satisfactory, so I didn't take it to the next level.


----------



## phox_mulder

I opened my box for the first time yesterday to put in an additional hard drive.

The OTA connections were quite loose, both F-connectors were almost a full turn loose, and one of the RCA connections was about to fall out completely.

Might be worth it just to open it up and tighten everything to get a better, more constant signal.


phox


----------



## gruxx

shendley said:


> where on two occasions I've had good signal strength on one tuner and zero on the other.


This happened to me last night. I was repointing my bowtie to try and pick up our 30mi away UPN (signal was at 25 -usually over 70).

ATSC 1 = zero signal on any channel
ATSC 2 = 92-95 on many of the close towers (6 - 9 miles away) channels.

after I got UPN back up to 75, using tuner 2 as a guide, I went back to live tv, and manually entered in two OTA channels. so each tuner was on a different OTA.

got good reception on both OTA tuners on livetv. so, i Went back into test off-air signal strength, and now both tuners were picking up a signal at 92-95.

It makes me wonder if there is some software pivot to open both astc tuners. or if my connectors are also flaky. I was going to wait to open the box until the 6.3 zip is ready, rather than digging through the wire snake pit (snakes on an HR10-250!) to open the box now. but since I got both tuners "back" i'm gonna hold off for a while.

just another method for someone else to try when one ATSC is "off" and the other is "solid"


----------



## TyroneShoes

Sir_whinealot said:


> If they designed too much gain into the RFDA, what would be the result of splitting the signal while increasing the gain _again_ at the source of the split?...


If done right, that should be OK. Typically what is done is to have a first amplifier stage that buffers and raises the gain (this also reduces reflections in the antenna system), then the signal is power-divided in a network similar to that in a passive hybrid splitter (now that the gain is raised so that this process doesn't add noise), then each output is amplified and buffered again. Sometimes AGC is used here also, which would mean that bypassing the module will redline the AGC, which could either help or hurt matters, depending on the levels.



Sir_whinealot said:


> ...I have added a splitter with an adjustable gain, and turned the gain up to _maximum_. If there's too much gain already within the unit ...could this result in signal problems (and should the gain at the splitter be reduced?)?


The terminology is a little confusing here. What you are describing is a variable attenuator. A passive device has no gain by definition. Turning it "up" means actually less net signal at the output.

But, that said, either too much or too little level can cause a problem. There is a window of operation, and below or above it gives degraded performance. The trick is to get all channels in that window, and messing with levels by changing the antenna, splitter, attenuation, amplification, line EQ, etc., is how. You begin by knowing how far away the signals are and how strong they are, and how much gain your antenna has (and how much loss your distribution has). Only then can you have an idea how much change in level (and what direction) will be necessary. Even then, experimentation is encouraged.

Bottom line, I recommend trying attenuation externally before opening the box, and trying to exercise the connectors before replacing the RFDA and existing cables with a splitter and new ones. All are worth trying, but it makes sense to start with the less invasive experiments and stop when success is reached, which means for some that going nuts and replacing everything ahead of the tuners is probably not necessary.


----------



## wjdjr

First time post, and a little long. First off, the cable change worked for me also. 

As a resident of northern DE, with Philly as my locals, I am faced with either giving up TiVo or DTV at some point. Since I have a OTA, I decided to do a detailed, channel by channel survey of the reception by my 6 HR10-250's. I found that 3 of the units had very good reception, with the variation by channel being distance and direction. The other 3 had varying reception on the two tuners, with very poor reception in the higher channel numbers (>45). Unfortunately, that's where ABC and NBC are in Philly. 

The 3 with poor reception turned out to be '04 purchased units, with 0001 as the first digits of the receiver ID. The good 3 were a '05 unit (0002) and 2 '06 units (0003 & 0004). My tentative cause was a configuration change between the early units and the later ones. 

When I read the suggested cable change, I decided to give it a try. To my surprise, it worked, giving me reception comparable to the "good" units, on one of the 0001 units. I have since changed the cables on all 6 units, and all are giving me good reception (Max 90 or so on the strong channels and 60-70 on the weaker ones). I used a RG-6 quad shielded cable with a F to RCA jack on one end (although it took 4 Radio Shacks to get all the parts). 

In the process of changing cables, I did record the numbers on the splitters and the receivers. The only configuration difference I noted was an H in front of what appears to be the model number of the splitter on the "good" units. 

Now the question is, what problem did the cable change solve? It's hard to believe a cable change would fix a splitter problem. My current best bet is interference from some source which the better shielding fixed. It also supports the good reception on some channels on the "bad" units and poor on other channels. All of my units have large HD's as the B units,  with 2 of the "bad" units having 750's and the 3rd 500. Since the cables pass under/over the HD's that could be the source. But 2 of the "good"s have 500's so that's a little suspect. My current suspicion is that age and heat degraded the shielding on the cables on the older units, but that's just a guess. 

Anyway, my thanks to Richard Chalk for fixing my problem, and at least I'm better prepared for the TiVo/DTV quandary.


----------



## TyroneShoes

wjdjr said:


> ...Now the question is, what problem did the cable change solve? It's hard to believe a cable change would fix a splitter problem. My current best bet is interference from some source which the better shielding fixed...


But it quite easy to believe that changing a cable could change a cable problem, or a reflection or level problem stemming from a cable problem.

There are only two requirements for digital lock (assuming an ATSC signal is being broadcast):

1.The signal level must be 15 dB above the noise/interference floor.

2.The tuner must be able to reject late-arriving smaller copies of the signal (reflections). And there is a different threshold for different generations of tuner design. Newer and better typically do a better job, and have a higher threshold.

While the primary methods of dealing with this are better antennae and antenna systems, better placement (higher and unobstructed an/or not in a reflective path), proper level management (amps and attenuators applied properly) and better tuners, the distribution from antenna to tuner can also be important, and changing something in that path can certainly impact things, even if sometimes unexpectedly.


----------



## Richard Chalk

wjdjr said:


> Now the question is, what problem did the cable change solve? It's hard to believe a cable change would fix a splitter problem. My current best bet is interference from some source which the better shielding fixed. It also supports the good reception on some channels on the "bad" units and poor on other channels. All of my units have large HD's as the B units, with 2 of the "bad" units having 750's and the 3rd 500. Since the cables pass under/over the HD's that could be the source. But 2 of the "good"s have 500's so that's a little suspect. My current suspicion is that age and heat degraded the shielding on the cables on the older units, but that's just a guess.


Sometimes it is best not to over-think things too much! In my case, I found that wiggling the cable right at the RCA plug caused the signal strength to jump around, often staying low, so I surmised that the cable assembly was defective. Since my units are also earlier production, it seems likely that there was a manufacturing problem with these cables, and that it was fixed in later units.

The RCA plugs probably have soldered braid under the plastic cover. Maybe they were heated too much, causing the dielectric in the cable to melt, and allowing an intermittent short in the cable. Maybe I'll disect one of them and see....

Richard


----------



## az_double_eagle

About 9 months ago, I was reading this forum (before I joined) and I read about trying an "FM Trap" (available for about $6 from Radio Shack) to improve OTA HD signal strength. I said, "What the heck - for $6 might as well try it." 

Well, let me tell you, for me, it really worked. I could receive about 5 more OTA channels, including the pesky ABC network (15-1) in the Phoenix area, and it boosted the others to a nice strong signal lock. I still ocasionally have troubles with 15-1 and the local 3-1 (for Diamondbacks games), but otherwise the cheap-o FM trap really did the trick 

I highly recommend trying it if you haven't already.


----------



## newsposter

I have a leviton amp from homedepot and indeed the fm trap on there did help me out earlier this year. Unsure why but just a few months after initial setup, my rig was giving me a weaker signal. Just flipped the switch and it got better..no idea why. Must be the change in seasons 

now i'm having all sorts of troubles but that's another thread


----------



## strejcek

wjdjr said:


> First time post, and a little long. First off, the cable change worked for me also.
> 
> As a resident of northern DE, with Philly as my locals, I am faced with either giving up TiVo or DTV at some point. Since I have a OTA, I decided to do a detailed, channel by channel survey of the reception by my 6 HR10-250's. I found that 3 of the units had very good reception, with the variation by channel being distance and direction. The other 3 had varying reception on the two tuners, with very poor reception in the higher channel numbers (>45). Unfortunately, that's where ABC and NBC are in Philly.
> 
> The 3 with poor reception turned out to be '04 purchased units, with 0001 as the first digits of the receiver ID. The good 3 were a '05 unit (0002) and 2 '06 units (0003 & 0004). My tentative cause was a configuration change between the early units and the later ones.
> 
> When I read the suggested cable change, I decided to give it a try. To my surprise, it worked, giving me reception comparable to the "good" units, on one of the 0001 units. I have since changed the cables on all 6 units, and all are giving me good reception (Max 90 or so on the strong channels and 60-70 on the weaker ones). I used a RG-6 quad shielded cable with a F to RCA jack on one end (although it took 4 Radio Shacks to get all the parts).
> 
> In the process of changing cables, I did record the numbers on the splitters and the receivers. The only configuration difference I noted was an H in front of what appears to be the model number of the splitter on the "good" units.
> 
> Now the question is, what problem did the cable change solve? It's hard to believe a cable change would fix a splitter problem. My current best bet is interference from some source which the better shielding fixed. It also supports the good reception on some channels on the "bad" units and poor on other channels. All of my units have large HD's as the B units, with 2 of the "bad" units having 750's and the 3rd 500. Since the cables pass under/over the HD's that could be the source. But 2 of the "good"s have 500's so that's a little suspect. My current suspicion is that age and heat degraded the shielding on the cables on the older units, but that's just a guess.
> 
> Anyway, my thanks to Richard Chalk for fixing my problem, and at least I'm better prepared for the TiVo/DTV quandary.


The cable change worked for me as well. To answer your question, the HR10 ships with RG-59 cables which connected the internal turners to the internal splitter. RG-59 is not designed to properly carry a digital signal, which is why RG6 is required for digital satellite. The RG6 has much less signal loss that the RG59.

For those of you who are considering the cable change, I would first be sure to run quad shielded RG6 from your antenna to your HR10. Second, I would bypass the internal HR10 splitter. I did this by using a high grade 3.5 db gold splitter and running two small quad shielded RG6 cables from my new splitter to the internal tuners. I drilled a 3/8" hole in the back of my HR10 and used a nut to secure the new splitter to the back of the HR 10. I decided to bypass the internal splitter because it uses solid state circuits and is not just a plain splitter, and I wanted to eliminate the possibility that the internal splitter was the reason for my signal problems. I am now getting higher signals on all my channels and they are consistent signals with no fluctuations. I live in SW Florida, midway between Tampa and Ft. Myers and am pulling in all the Tampa digital stations and the majority of the Ft. Myers stations. I am pulling in stations that are, on average, over 60 miles from my home and at times, I can even receive stations from Orlando, over 120 miles away from me. My average signal strength across all of my receivable channels is high 70's to 80's. The cable change really worked for me, because before the change, I was lucky to get reception in the 60's and those signals fluctuated so much, I was unable to watch OTA tv.

The biggest secrete to good reception is a good high grade antenna installed as high as possible. I use the antennas direct DB8 antenna which is installed on my second story roof. Best money I ever spent. It only took me 10 days of fine tuning to get as many stations as I could get, but aside from sore legs and back, I could not be happier with my OTA reception.


----------



## wjdjr

In my case, I don't think that the cables being RG-59 was the problem, since the switch to RG-6QS gave me marginal improvement on the "good" units, at best. I'm still leaning toward the degredation of the shielding. The "bad" units had 300gb HD as the B unit almost from the time I got them, and two of the units ended up with failed 300gb drives. 

I also didn't report that I had checked continuity on all of the original cables (though I didn't think to keep track of which cables came from which units) and the resistance was extremly low on the signal portion on all of them which would indicate that the siginal path was OK. The shieldiing resistance was higher in some cases which makes then suspect. I don't have any equipment that would allow me to check directly for shielding performace. 

Again, I was getting a signal on the poor channels on the "bad" units but it was significantly lower than after the cable change and highly variable. All went away after the cable change.


----------



## Mark W

Can anyone post a picture of their modification that worked for them?


----------



## TyroneShoes

strejcek said:


> ...RG-59 is not designed to properly carry a digital signal, which is why RG6 is required for digital satellite. The RG6 has much less signal loss that the RG59...


That may be the biggest load of horse puckey I've seen on this forum in a very long time.

The cable doesn't have anything to do with the type of modulated information carried, and doesn't even have a glimmer of a hint whether the signal it carries is analog or digitally modulated; and in either case all terrestrial TV, including ATSC DT, arrives on an analog carrier. In fact, since ATSC and NTSC use the same frequencies, there is absolutely nothing different other than the modulation scheme. And every carrier is nothing more than EMF, and received as AC RMS power.

A cable is just a dumb piece of wire, and regardless of what type of modulated information is on the carrier that transports through it, as long as the impedance is the same and it terminates into an antenna system on one end and a tuner on the other, there is no real difference from the point of view of the tuner, which could also not really care less what type of cable is attached to it.

Shielding is a separate issue. Either can have either better or worse shielding than the other, dependant only on the manufacturer's specs for that particular type of cable.

Both RG-59 and RG-6 are 75-ohm impedance waveguide-style coax, and the ONLY thing different about them is the flat loss (attenuation over distance). The frequency response characteristics are absolutely identical. Each sees the proper termination electrically as an infinite extension of the waveguide--IOW, the very same thing.

So how would that one single minute difference impact a cable that is less than a foot and a half long? The RG-6 will attenuate only about 3/4 of what an equal span of RG-59 would attenuate. Since the loss at 890MHz on a 18" piece of RG-59 is so microscopic that it is impossible to measure accurately outside of a white-coat lab, the difference between that and RG-6 is completely insignificant in this application.

The attenuation through one is on the order of about 0.1 dB, and the other is therefore on the order of about 0.075 dB, even at the highest frequency. Since a typical received OTA signal varies in signal strength regularly over a few hours 30-50 times greater than either of those measurements, the difference of 0.025 dB isn't even a drop in the ocean.

Bottom line, digital or analog, ATSC or NTSC, HD or SD, animal vegetable or mineral, none of that has anything to do with the insignificant differences of RG-6 as compared to RG-59. Either will work just fine in this application and in most applications.


----------



## utwo229

I had the same issue. One OTA with signal in the 80's, the other OTA with a signal in the 50's (both on the same channel of course.) Also, my other receiver has great reception on both tuners, so I know the antenna is pointed OK. So I figured it had to be the coax between the switch and the receiver, or something else. 

After trying to switch the OTA input cable to another feed, the result was the same. So I opened the receiver, disconnected the cables to the tuners, and ran RG6 directly from separate OTA cables to each of the tuners. I immediately got signal in the 90's on both OTA tuners. 

With this information, I determined that the internal splitter is the culprit. So I ripped it out, drilled a lower hole in the plastic (there is already a hole behind it in the metal) and put two coax barrel connectors in to housing where the splitter used to be. I made two short RG6 cables that connect between the barrel connectors and the tuners. 

Now I connect individual OTA cables to the receiver directly feeding each of the tuners. No more internal splitter and fantastic OTA reception on both tuners....


----------



## Mous3

I have done the same mod and noticed improvement on most channels. There were a few channels that i gave up on and now I receive them with no problems. The improvement varies depending on the channel and I almost never have drop outs. I replaced the RG59 cables and the internal splitter. I also replaced my twist on connectors with compression connectors.


----------



## jluzbet

Hi All,
Can someone that has done this let me know what connectors to use as I am currently at work and will like to get these parts before i get home ...
I defenitly will love to try this as i get alot of dropouts..

Thanks

http://www.radioshack.com/search/index.jsp?kwCatId=&kw=f connector rca&origkw=f connector rca


----------



## A J Ricaud

jluzbet said:


> Hi All,
> Can someone that has done this let me know what connectors to use as I am currently at work and will like to get these parts before i get home ...
> I defenitly will love to try this as i get alot of dropouts..
> 
> Thanks
> 
> http://www.radioshack.com/search/index.jsp?kwCatId=&kw=f connector rca&origkw=f connector rca


This is what you need:

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...ctor+rca&kw=f+connector+rca&parentPage=search


----------



## jluzbet

:up:


A J Ricaud said:


> This is what you need:
> 
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...ctor+rca&kw=f+connector+rca&parentPage=search


Thanks


----------



## Eben

Mark W said:


> Can anyone post a picture of their modification that worked for them?


I'd like to see a picture, too, please.


----------



## A J Ricaud

jluzbet said:


> :up:
> 
> Thanks


You are welcome, but just to be sure you know, you have to put an "F" connector on the end of the coax. Then, screw on the RS RCA adapter.


----------



## Yog-Sothoth

This should help with reception:


----------



## jluzbet

A J Ricaud said:


> You are welcome, but just to be sure you know, you have to put an "F" connector on the end of the coax. Then, screw on the RS RCA adapter.


Yeah I got that part...
I actually finished it about 10 minutes ago... No improvment for me it got actually worst, so I reverted back to original...


----------



## newsposter

that was something i feared..me doing all this and it getting worse...it's pain to unstack my units and a lot of trouble. So i'd want a positive payback on it if i did it.


----------



## fmowry

No worky for me either. I have good strength on most channels though. I was hoping it would fix my jump channel but it didn't.

Tried it by just replacing the cable and then by adding a new splitter too. Same with both or negligible at best.

Frank


----------



## newsposter

geez thanks  now i go from honey this will make the signal better....to 'it should work' lol


----------



## A J Ricaud

jluzbet said:


> Yeah I got that part...
> I actually finished it about 10 minutes ago... No improvment for me it got actually worst, so I reverted back to original...


Sorry to hear it didn't work out.


----------



## TyroneShoes

Yog-Sothoth said:


> This should help with reception:


It worked for Jody Foster.


----------



## newsposter

really..those would help my ota reception? Link to store please....


----------



## Jeremy517

Yog-Sothoth said:


> This should help with reception:


Nah. The HR 10-250 performs horribly when it gets too strong of a signal.


----------



## jcricket

Which splitter are people using to replace the internal one? I'm thinking of trying this to see if the couple of marginal channels (which are insanely close to me, so it's probably multipath) I can't get reliably come in better. 

If it's only $10 or so, it's worth a shot.


----------



## Jeremy517

jcricket said:


> Which splitter are people using to replace the internal one? I'm thinking of trying this to see if the couple of marginal channels (which are insanely close to me, so it's probably multipath) I can't get reliably come in better.
> 
> If it's only $10 or so, it's worth a shot.


If they're insanely close, I'd try an attenuator first. You could be suffering from too much signal.


----------



## newsposter

Jeremy517 said:


> Nah. The HR 10-250 performs horribly when it gets too strong of a signal.


whew thanks for the update.. I hadn't pressed 'send order' yet on those dishes. Save me 10s of millions on my Black amex


----------



## jcricket

Jeremy517 said:


> If they're insanely close, I'd try an attenuator first. You could be suffering from too much signal.


Tried that - no dice. I get ABC, CBS, NBC (all on one antenna) & Fox (using a second, directional antenna, pointed at an antenna far away) just fine. UPN/WB (now CW) and PBS (along with one or two other local channels) are, unfortunately, on a different antenna (about 90 degrees to the left of the ABC, CBS & NBC).

I've futzed around many times with the two antennas on the roof and never succeeded at getting UPN or WB reliably, without messing up ABC, CBS and NBC.

So, I figured this was worth a shot. UPN and PBS come in semi-reliably, so maybe it's just the way the cables are seated or something.


----------



## falstaffpac

Thought I would add my 3 cents and personal experience to this discussion. A couple years ago I tried to get good OTA reception on my own. I went through 3 or 4 antennas from Radio Shack (the guy at Radio Shack was no longer happy to see me, what with all the exchanges and ultimate refund). I tried attic mouting and roof mounting. No amount of configuration would receive all the local OTA broadcasts. Early this year I bit the bullet and shelled out over $200 for a professional roof mounted antenna installation on a 6 ft mast. The installer fiddled for over an hour and couldn't get all the channels. I finally told him I mostly wanted ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC. He managed to adjust the signal to allow this. Superbowl Sunday the following weekend I had so many dropouts, the game was unwatchable in HD for me. I came to the realization that since I'll be sticking with the HDR10-250 for HD locals I'll have to either have a second antenna or a rotar for my current antenna. 

I stumbled on this thread last week and figured the suggestion was worth a shot. I was especially struck by the comment regarding the vascilating signal strength, as I've noticed this problem myself. I purchased RG-6 cable and RCA adaptors at Radio Shack (same guy, who no doubt recognized me) and installed them yesterday. I'm now pulling all my local channels. My lowest signal is stable at 80, no vascillating. The experiment was well worth it on my end.

For what its worth,
Aaron


----------



## Indiana627

A J Ricaud said:


> You are welcome, but just to be sure you know, you have to put an "F" connector on the end of the coax. Then, screw on the RS RCA adapter.


I'm going to get the parts from RS today and try this fix tonight. What exactly do I need to attach the RCA adapter's to the end of the my RG-6 coax? Can someone provide a link to the "F" connector on RS's site? Thanks.


----------



## thecrave

This should be it, assuming your RG6 leads have the standard male F connector on each side.

This will convert it to RCA / phono for the built-in splitter.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...=&origkw=f+phono&kw=f+phono&parentPage=search

P/N 278-252


----------



## Indiana627

thecrave said:


> This should be it, assuming your RG6 leads have the standard male F connector on each side.
> 
> This will convert it to RCA / phono for the built-in splitter.
> 
> http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...=&origkw=f+phono&kw=f+phono&parentPage=search
> 
> P/N 278-252


But to conect those to my RG-6 I need these right?

I see you're in Buffalo - I'm in Wheatfield. How does Fox come in OTA on your HR10? That's the one I'm having problems with.


----------



## poppagene

Indiana627 said:


> But to conect those to my RG-6 I need these right?


The link you provided is what you would use to change an rca plug into an f connector. you are going to use a 2 short rg6 cables with (presumably) f connectors on both ends. The f connector is the right connection for th eatsc tuners on the inside of the box, however the "splitter" at the back of the box on the inside uses rca plugs in order to join this with the tuner you will need to change the male f connectors into male rca plugs.


----------



## STL

Mark W said:


> Can anyone post a picture of their modification that worked for them?


I second that.


----------



## Indiana627

OK, think I got it. I need 2 RG-6 cables with F connectors on all 4 ends. Then on 1 end of each cable I put the RCA plug, which connect to the internal splitter, then the other 2 ends with F connectors connect to the 2 internal tuners.


----------



## token

I'm new and can't attach pics yet.
Could someone insert these as the are from an archived post that show the internal splitter?

home.comcast.ne#t/~maharg18/IMG_0270.JPG
home.comcast.ne#t/~maharg18/IMG_0267.JPG

Remove the #'s for valid link.

Thanks,
Token


----------



## Indiana627

jcricket said:


> Which splitter are people using to replace the internal one?


I didn't see an answer to this question. Is there a splitter out there that will replace the one in the HR10?


----------



## WinstonSmith

Oh, man this looks intimidating!


----------



## A J Ricaud

Mark W said:


> Can anyone post a picture of their modification that worked for them?


http://www.radioshack.com/product/i...ctor+rca&kw=f+connector+rca&parentPage=search

These screw on to a regular "f" connector.


----------



## poppagene

token said:


> I'm new and can't attach pics yet.
> Could someone insert these as the are from an archived post that show the internal splitter?
> 
> home.comcast.net/~maharg18/IMG_0270.JPG
> home.comcast.net/~maharg18/IMG_0267.JPG
> 
> Remove the #'s for valid link.
> 
> Thanks,
> Token


home.comcast.net/~maharg18/IMG_0270.JPG
home.comcast.net/~maharg18/IMG_0267.JPG

ok


----------



## Indiana627

Went to RS and got 4 F connectors and 2 RCA adapters (I have RG-6 cable at home). Hopefully I'll install the new cables tonight and will report back. Thanks again everyone.



> Oh, man this looks intimidating!


Not really, just remove the 5 hex head screws and the cover will come off the HR10, then just unscrew the stock cables from the OTA tuners and then unplug the other end from the internal splitter and replace with your new better quality homemade ones. I haven't done it yet but did look inside before I installed my HR10 this weekend since I knew I may have to do this.


----------



## WinstonSmith

Well, I"m already stuck. 

I went to Radio Shack and bought the phono plugs.

But, I can't get the TiVo open. =/ What tool do I need?


----------



## A J Ricaud

WinstonSmith said:


> Well, I"m already stuck.
> 
> I went to Radio Shack and bought the phono plugs.
> 
> But, I can't get the TiVo open. =/ What tool do I need?


A Torx T-10 L-key 
A Torx T-15 L-key

One opens the case (I don't remember which) and the other removes the HD screws.


----------



## WinstonSmith

Can you get those at any hardware store?


----------



## thecrave

Indiana627 said:


> But to conect those to my RG-6 I need these right?
> 
> I see you're in Buffalo - I'm in Wheatfield. How does Fox come in OTA on your HR10? That's the one I'm having problems with.


I'm in Hamburg -- Fox works GREAT! and I get CBC in Toronto from the same direction, which is awesome for Hockey Night in Canada (in HD)!

I have a problem with NBC, WGRZ. You're north of me, so you have to point almost directly WEST to pickup Fox, and SOUTH to pickup CBS/ABC/NBC.

It's been a constant battle. I'm still working on it.


----------



## A J Ricaud

WinstonSmith said:


> Can you get those at any hardware store?


I'm not sure. I know that Weaknees includes them in their upgrade kits. The one you use to open the case does not have to be "L" shaped, but I think you need an "L" to remove the HD.


----------



## pacbellguy

I used a hex wrench (allen?) to remove my screws. Case slid off easily. 

My cables were on very tight, so I didn't want to mess with them. I was mostly checking for loose fittings.


----------



## litzdog911

WinstonSmith said:


> Can you get those at any hardware store?


Yes. Torx T10 is the one you want to remove those rear panel screws. The hard drive screws might be Torx T15, but you're not doing anything with the drive right now.


----------



## Indiana627

Well I made the new cables in put them in last night and while it did seem to raise the peak signal strength across the board a little bit, Fox will still drop in and out (it peaks at 80+ but will drop to the teens and then back and forth). I thought I was OK because it recorded the full hour of House with no problem, but then when I checked it's progress on Standoff it was dropping in and out like crazy. And it worked fine on Sunday night during Til Death, so I don't understand what is going on with Fox. I can receive all my other locals (NBC, CBS, ABC, UPN/CW and PBS) fine with constant signals in the 80s or higher. When my antenna is hooked up directly to my TV, Fox comes in great with a signal in the 90s.

Maybe the Fox signal it too strong for the HR10? According to the Buffalo HD forum on AVSforum.com it is transmitting at 1000 kW - the strongest of any local channel. I've seen references about a signal being too strong for the HR10 - but I'm not sure how to fix this problem without negatively impacting my other channels? I've read something about a 'trap' or 'attenuator' or something?



thecrave said:


> I'm in Hamburg -- Fox works GREAT! and I get CBC in Toronto from the same direction, which is awesome for Hockey Night in Canada (in HD)! I have a problem with NBC, WGRZ.


 Hockey night in Canada would be great, but my antenna won't pick up CBC. NBC comes in fine for me without having to make any adjustments to my antenna. Fox does too when hooked up directly to the TV and not going through the HR10.


----------



## Indiana627

OK, I found these 2 anttenuators at RS. I imagine one of these is the next thing for me to try? And I fear that it will attenuate all the OTA signals I get right? Which means I might lose another channel while getting Fox to come in better. Curse you D* for not having the OTA tuners activated on the HR20 - I probably wouldn't be having any of these problems!


----------



## WhyMe

I have the same problem with Fox in Houston, TX. All my networks are coming in at 85 to 95 and Fox comes in at 70 to 75 causing some pixelization....Any suggestions?


----------



## LlamaLarry

WinstonSmith said:


> Can you get those at any hardware store?


Yeah, and while you're there, get the ones that are like screwdrivers and skip the L shaped ones entirely. Screwdriver type are harder to lose and a lot easier on your fingers.  I picked up a couple from Fry's for a couple of bucks each.


----------



## Indiana627

> OK, I found these 2 anttenuators at RS.


Just my luck, none of the area RS have either of these in stock. They can order the adjustable one in for me. Guess that's what I'll have to try next, unless anyone has any other suggestions?


----------



## A J Ricaud

Indiana627 said:


> Just my luck, none of the area RS have either of these in stock. They can order the adjustable one in for me. Guess that's what I'll have to try next, unless anyone has any other suggestions?


You definately want the ADJUSTABLE attenuator--you can dial in the exact amount of attenuation you need that way.


----------



## Indiana627

Does it sound like an attenuator would fix the problem I'm having? Again, my Fox was fine for House last night but then started having problems during Standoff. It just seems strange that it would be fine for an entire hour and then start having problems (plus it worked fine recording Til Death on Sunday night). Wouldn't an attenuator problem be more constant?


----------



## litzdog911

Indiana627 said:


> Does it sound like an attenuator would fix the problem I'm having? Again, my Fox was fine for House last night but then started having problems during Standoff. It just seems strange that it would be fine for an entire hour and then start having problems (plus it worked fine recording Til Death on Sunday night). Wouldn't an attenuator problem be more constant?


Yes! I think there's a good chance that your Fox problem will be solved with an attenuator. Hopefully the amount of attenuation required won't impact your other channels.


----------



## Indiana627

OK, I'll give it a try. Thanks again for everyone's help.


----------



## WinstonSmith

I just opened mine up (thanks for all the help on getting it open) and everything was darn tight. 

I just restarted the HD-TiVo and I doubt I'm going to see any difference. 

Just checked, no difference. If anything, they seems to be a little lower tonight.


----------



## WinstonSmith

I wanted to go ahead and post my experience thus far. 

My previous posts detail what I had tried, but yesterday I went a step farther. 

I opened up the TiVo box and disconnected the cables from the internal splitter to the two tuners. I then bypassed the internal splitter by running the line directly into tuner #1. I was getting at least 90 on every digital channel I can receive in my area. This was a significant increase over anything I was ever getting using the splitter. 

I then reconnected the ANT IN into the splitter and then used the two original cables from inside the TiVo to connected the internal splitter and tuner. Same as before. 40s-60s on my CBS affiliate and 70s-90s on others. I was still seeing varying strenghts on the two tuners even on the same channel. 

So, my next thing was to run another line from my antenna (through a splitter) and ran TWO separate lines into the two tuners in the TiVo box, bypassing the internal splitter. 

This resulted in at least 90 on all channels. So far, this seems best. I recorded about 7 shows last evening and none even had a single skip. I was very pleased.

I suppose the next step is to try and make two new coax cables that would go from the internal splitter to the two tuners. If that doesn't work, I will need to drill another hole into the HD-TiVo so that I can have two lines going in and bypass the internal splitter. 

By the way, I think this has already been mentioned, but the two cables that came w/ the TiVo that ran from the internal splitter into the two tuners were indeed RG-59.


----------



## Indiana627

> I think there's a good chance that your Fox problem will be solved with an attenuator. Hopefully the amount of attenuation required won't impact your other channels.


Well I installed the adjustable attenuator from RS last night and even with it set to max I still couldn't get my Fox station to come in reliably. And with it set to max I lost my NBC station, so I turned it back to min and now I can get NBC again but no Fox. So I guess for Fox I either watch the shows (only 3) live in HD or record them in SD. At least I get ABC, CBS, NBC with no problems. Guess I'll just have to wait until the HR20 is running smoothly with the OTA tuners enabled before I can record Fox in HD. Thanks for everyone's help.


----------



## hoopsbwc34

Thanks OP! I was all set to send my box in because one tuner was always less than the other. I assumed this was a hardware problem, but just resetting the cables in the box fixed the problem. I think I need to replace them but it's working for now so I'm not going to bother... Thanks again.


----------



## Lee L

Indiana627 said:


> Well I installed the adjustable attenuator from RS last night and even with it set to max I still couldn't get my Fox station to come in reliably. And with it set to max I lost my NBC station, so I turned it back to min and now I can get NBC again but no Fox. So I guess for Fox I either watch the shows (only 3) live in HD or record them in SD. At least I get ABC, CBS, NBC with no problems. Guess I'll just have to wait until the HR20 is running smoothly with the OTA tuners enabled before I can record Fox in HD. Thanks for everyone's help.


Not sure of your exact situation, but since you mentioned going to the Buffalo thread at AVS, I assume that you have tried various antennas, possibly even a
more directional one? If you have any multipath, that could be what is killing fox.

Are your stations close together? Maybe you need a couple of directional antennas and a joiner to get fox properly?


----------



## officiousintermeddler

I had a problem with CBS (Chicago). When upgrading to a second hard drive, I replaced the existing cables with new quad shielded RG6 which I ran through new holes drilled into the side panel directly to the tuners (bypassing the splitter inside). I used a good quality channel plus splitter on the outside and now get a good signal on both tuners for CBS (about 60) and a great signal on other channels (90-95). My old cables and connectors appeared to be seated tightly, but obviously, there was some issue that caused problems.

Thanks to all for the great suggestions here.

Ross


----------



## Indiana627

Lee L said:


> Are your stations close together? Maybe you need a couple of directional antennas and a joiner to get fox properly?


How would I join 2 antennas together?

As far as how close my stations are, our locals broadcast from 2 different areas. ABC, CBS and NBC are south of me at least 15 miles away. FOX and UPN/CW are west and about 7 miles. These both broadcast at 1000kw and I can't get either of them on my HR10. I can get both of them fine when the antenna is connected directly to the TV. What exactly is multipath?


----------



## Lee L

Multipath is when signals get reflected off terrain or buildings near you or in between you and the transmitter site. Therfore a copy of teh signal arrives slightly later than the main signal. In analog broadcasts, this caused a ghost. In digital broadcasts, it can cause the problems you are seeing if the reflected signal is close to the same strenght as the stream does not look the same. The HR10-250 seems to be more suceptible than some other devices to multipth which is probably why it does not happen with the TV.

You use an antenna joiner to combine the signal sfrom 2 antennas. check Radio shack or a place on thr web like www.solidsignal.com . I think the leading product is called Join-tenna. You would basically take 2 directional antennas (and you could probably use small ones at the distance you are talking about) and using equal length coax, run them to the Join-tenna then run the combined signal to your device.

It can be tricky, but is sometimes the only way to get the signal. I would check in teh AVS thread in your area for some specific hints as someone else ther ehas likely been through the same thing.


----------



## alwayscool

Here is the link: http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Terk-Long-Range-Antenna-TV38/sem/rpsm/oid/73951/catOid/-12891/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

When I got my HR10-250 I purchased a Terk TV38 long range HD antenna at circuit city for $200.00 and an antenna rotator. It's mounted on a 1 1/2" pole that extends 6' above my roof. I think you guys are wasting alot of time because I get a 90% signal strength. I feed the RG-6 from the Terk into my 8 way switch into the antenna port on it, then use a 35-SDX-100 diplexer at the HR10-250 to split the signal back out. It works flawlessly, and I think investing in a good antenna will solve all your signal strength problems, unless you live out in the woods somewhere of course!


----------



## floydturbor

Attached are some photos of the cables I made. I use Canare true 75ohm impedance connectors and Belden 1694 rg6 cable.

http://www.quad405.com/cable1.jpg
http://www.quad405.com/cable2.jpg


----------



## finaldiet

I don't get it! I found old antenna in attic and ran a cable to OTA input and my signals have been around 94 or 95. Never any problems. Good thing, I'm not tech savvy.


----------



## whsbuss

For those not able to make the RG6 cables, here's a site I found that has 1 ft RG6 cables.

http://www.national-tech.com/catalog/rg6fcoaxialcable.htm


----------



## lorick

whsbuss said:


> For those not able to make the RG6 cables, here's a site I found that has 1 ft RG6 cables.
> 
> http://www.national-tech.com/catalog/rg6fcoaxialcable.htm


I do not see any cables with RCA plugs on one end as needed.


----------



## whsbuss

lorick said:


> I do not see any cables with RCA plugs on one end as needed.


That's right. You will still need the F to RCA adaptors from Radio Shack.


----------



## strejcek

Or bypass the internal splitter completely and install a standard two way splitter like I did. Bypassing the internal splitter gained me 20-30 percent on all my OTA signals


----------



## TyroneShoes

floydturbor said:


> ...I use Canare true 75ohm impedance connectors and Belden 1694 rg6 cable...


Belden 1694/1694a is not designed for broadband RF, it is designed for carrying SDI digital baseband video, and is therefore swept only to 15 MHz. While this is probably not going to make a lot of difference for a 1-foot cable, it is definitely not recommended for frequencies quite often in the 600 MHz and up range. Any cheap RG-6 or RG-59 would be a better choice, technically speaking.


----------



## Richard Chalk

finaldiet said:


> I don't get it! I found old antenna in attic and ran a cable to OTA input and my signals have been around 94 or 95. Never any problems. Good thing, I'm not tech savvy.


Well, let me help you!!!

First, read my original post where I started this thread, and you will see that I had the problem on two out of three units, so you might have gotten one which actually worked correctly.

Second, you might live in a location where there is plenty of signal strength, and therefore can stand a little extra loss without reducing your indicated strength.

In my original post, I pointed out that the signal strength varied as the cables were flexed adjacent to the RCA plug. I did not have any problem with the splitter, but obviously, there was a problem with the connectors on the cables. Others since then have addressed the problem a couple of different ways, with mixed, but mostly positive results.

Does this help you to "get it"???


----------



## dmurphy

phox_mulder said:


> I opened my box for the first time yesterday to put in an additional hard drive.
> 
> The OTA connections were quite loose, both F-connectors were almost a full turn loose, and one of the RCA connections was about to fall out completely.
> 
> Might be worth it just to open it up and tighten everything to get a better, more constant signal.
> 
> phox


My signal strength -significantly- improved when I removed this and replaced it with this instead.

And yes, I still keep the switch around for my Intellivision. Pfft. 

What amazes me is that I'm getting local HD over a 40-year-old roof antenna that came with the house. I've just been too lazy to get up on the roof and pull it down. Good thing I guess. 

I'm about 30 miles or so outside of NYC and get -great- reception on all the locals -- ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WNET (PBS), NJN (also PBS), WWOR and WPIX. Excellent.


----------



## easy-e

Could you buy a signal amplifier from an indoor antenna to the HR10? I'm thinking about testing that to see if it improves the signals...


----------



## litzdog911

easy-e said:


> Could you buy a signal amplifier from an indoor antenna to the HR10? I'm thinking about testing that to see if it improves the signals...


A signal amplifier *might* help, but usually they don't. That's because typical amps will boost the noise along with the signal. What you really want if your signals are truly weak is an antenna-mounted "preamplifier". You mount the preamp at your antenna so that the signal is boosted before running through the coax cable. Channel Master makes great antenna preamps.


----------



## JTAnderson

I just wanted to chime in because I think this thread deserves an occasional bump.

I seemed to be losing OTA channels to intermittent drop-outs one-by-one. First KTTV-DT became unusable. Then KNBC and KCBS. Only KABC and KTLA, of the locals I watched fairly regularly, remained watchable. I went so far as to replace my aging rooftop antenna, with no notable improvment. (The antenna had pretty much ceased to function on low-band VHF channels, so I figured it was probably compromised for UHF and high-band VHF too.)

I was pretty sceptical of replacing those two short cables as a fix, but I finally tried it a couple of weeks ago. It certainly seems to have cured the problem.

Clearly, from reading this thread, this won't solve similar problems for everyone. But if you haven't tried it, and are having intermittent drop-out problems, it is well worth the try.

One thing that I didn't try, that may have the same effect is to remove the old cables, clean the connectors, and put them back.


----------



## TiVo8472

Yes, this just fixed my problem with KTVU 2-1 (56.1). I took the crappy tivo RG9 cut off the coax connector. Then I put a new coax connector on it and used a coax joiner to a short peace of RG6 with coax connectors at both ends. The result was a stable signal on tuner 2 and a 40% increase in signal strength.


----------



## sandpj

I have one channel that shows 70 on the meter with fluctuation. It suffers from frequent dropouts and is pretty much not watchable.

I first tried to feed the antenna cable directly to one tuner. The signal increased to 78 with minimal fluctuation. So I decided to go to RadioShack and acquire the replacement parts.

Unfortunately, even using a new splitter with new cables, the signal was identical to the original setup. Using the F to RCA adapter and the original splitter made the problem worse.

Looks like I head back up to the attic to try adjusting the 4228 direction.


----------



## trausch

Yog-Sothoth said:


> This should help with reception:


No good. I tried that and all I got was a repeating signal of the first 50 prime numbers.


----------



## hburns61

I did this fix on my HR10-250 over the weekend. I had one station (46-1 CBS in Atlanta) that I couldn't view for the past several weeks. I had the same symptoms, signal bouncing between 0-60 with no lock. Sometimes the two tuners would have completely different signal levels.

I left the old splitter in the box, but replaced it with one I got at Lowe's. I drilled a hole in the back panel and mounted the splitter to that. Ran new 1' coax cables with F-connectors from Radio Shack.

I don't know if the culprit was the splitter or the cables, but I suspect the splitter. I tried wiggling the original cables and reseating them. That had no effect.

The end result is that I'm receiving all the channels now. Of the big 4 networks, CBS is still the weakest for me, but it's at a solid 60 and locked now.

Thanks to those who first discovered this and posted.


----------



## KSparkuhl

k2ue said:


> ...the little piece representing the loss due to attenuation and/or mismatch by those internal cables would need to change enormously -- from so bad nobody would have done it in the first place, to negligible -- to have any significant effect on reception.


I concur, and a very wise summation. You know your basics.

I began to wonder why it would be that some would report having success with such an upgrade and others would not? Could it be simply just tightening the connections? Absolutely. That's all I did. I simply tightened the "F" connectors on the off-air tuner modules with a wrench and that seems to have done the trick. There is now no signal fluctuation at all and was a simple fix.


----------



## thedeak08

Does anyone know exactly how long the cables are for the OTA tuners inside the box? I'd like to make a couple of backup cables with RG-6 incase mine go bad, and I really don't want to have to open the box and unhook then unless I have to.


----------



## Indiana627

About 10" if I remember correctly. I didn't measure mine, just set them next to new RG-6 as a reference and made my cuts.


----------



## peterbilt

I tried this fix last night to help out with the fluctuating signals I was getting on numerous channels, especially the local ABC, which is broadcasting from very close to my home.

Replacing the cables (using the built-in splitter) seems to have helped a lot. Signals are now far more stable on each channel and while I didn't achieve miraculously improved signal strength on each station, it did improve stability to the point that every OTA local seems watchable now.

The real test will come when the station are pushing out some prime time HD content. If I have trouble at that time, I'll try replacing the splitter.


----------



## imadvaddict

If this is a known "Manufacturing Problem" Why have they not done a recall to retrofit these defective units. It really ticks me off when they can get away with shoddy material's and then let us bear the burden of repair.

Indeed I just finished opening up our HR-10 250 and low and behold RG-59 cable, and loose connection's. For immediate correction I will make the proper cables and connection's. But I am not happy about having to to so. I spent a great deal of my time trying out many different antennas and solution's. Probably voided the warranty by opening the case, but I would consider that discovery of the problem.

As for the manufacturer, they are responsible to repair defective workmanship, and it "CLEARLY" says so in the warranty. 

We had our HR-10 installed last August and this is just totally unacceptable.

I would suggest anyone whom has made these repairs keep their receipts for any thing they have spent on signal quality issues. 

It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


----------



## dougwx12

imadvaddict said:


> If this is a known "Manufacturing Problem" Why have they not done a recall to retrofit these defective units. It really ticks me off when they can get away with shoddy material's and then let us bear the burden of repair.
> 
> Indeed I just finished opening up our HR-10 250 and low and behold RG-59 cable, and loose connection's. For immediate correction I will make the proper cables and connection's. But I am not happy about having to to so. I spent a great deal of my time trying out many different antennas and solution's. Probably voided the warranty by opening the case, but I would consider that discovery of the problem.
> 
> As for the manufacturer, they are responsible to repair defective workmanship, and it "CLEARLY" says so in the warranty.
> 
> We had our HR-10 installed last August and this is just totally unacceptable.
> 
> I would suggest anyone whom has made these repairs keep their receipts for any thing they have spent on signal quality issues.
> 
> It is high time for a class action suit, and demand they correct this defect in "all" the HR-10's. With a proper splitter and internal cables.


Umm, quit grandstanding please. See post #41 for a very clear description of why rg59 versus rg6 doesn't make a hill of beans here. New connectors probably only matter insomuch as the act of replacing them forcing them to be reseated. Did you try just tightening up your existing leads?

So you had a loose connection. Warranty action would've been to RMA the unit. You chose to crack the top and fix it yourself instead.

Mine have never been an issue. Move on with life...


----------



## litzdog911

This problem affects only a very very small percentage of HR10's. Having a loose cable in yours is hardly justification for a class action suit. Geez.


----------



## imadvaddict

You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help.

There is a manufacturing and material problem with this particular unit. We just opened up three more unit's in our local area today from personal acquaintances whom happen to have the HR 10-250. We should find many more before the end of the weekend. They all have the same defect. The internal cables are all RG-56 and not satisfactorily connected in 3 out of 4 units so far.

The install specifications call for a QUAD SHIELD RG-6 feed to this unit , yet the manufacturer compromised the internal components of the incoming signal with improper cable and a poor splitter.

This is an engineering error that could not have been overlooked, they knew about it. But they decided to save nickels at our expense.


This is clearly beginning to appear that this is not just an early model problem. The four units (including mine) all were installed within the last nine months.

BTW, your next question wheres my degree from? MIT. Wheres your degree from?


----------



## imadvaddict

dougwx12 said:


> Umm, quit grandstanding please. See post #41 for a very clear description of why rg59 versus rg6 doesn't make a hill of beans here. New connectors probably only matter insomuch as the act of replacing them forcing them to be reseated. Did you try just tightening up your existing leads?
> 
> So you had a loose connection. Warranty action would've been to RMA the unit. You chose to crack the top and fix it yourself instead.
> 
> Mine have never been an issue. Move on with life...


I expect to get what I pay for not play around with it, at my expense. When my time is wasted in life I give em a kick in the rear and I kick em hard. If they try to poo poo it to make it go away then I kick em hard where it hurts and counts.


----------



## wkearney99

Can an HR10-250 that's not subscribed (but has an access card installed) still see OTA signals? This is actually two questions. One being will setup show signal strength for OTA. The second being would it actually function for recording OTA without an active subscription?

I've run the cable directly to an OTA tuner inside the case to eliminate whether it's the splitter or cables. No luck.

In adding one of these two our setup I'm noticing no signal strength when checking OTA HDTV. The signals are there as the tuner in a Pioneer 1140HD sees a decent signal for them. So before I go an activate this thing I want to make sure the OTA tuners are actually WORKING.


----------



## dvmar0503

imadvaddict said:


> You all must have a nice time flaming legitimate claims. Get off your high horses and a college education in engineering might help.
> 
> There is a manufacturing and material problem with this particular unit. We just opened up three more unit's in our local area today from personal acquaintances whom happen to have the HR 10-250. We should find many more before the end of the weekend. They all have the same defect. The internal cables are all RG-56 and not satisfactorily connected in 3 out of 4 units so far.
> 
> The install specifications call for a QUAD SHIELD RG-6 feed to this unit , yet the manufacturer compromised the internal components of the incoming signal with improper cable and a poor splitter.
> 
> This is an engineering error that could not have been overlooked, they knew about it. But they decided to save nickels at our expense.
> 
> This is clearly beginning to appear that this is not just an early model problem. The four units (including mine) all were installed within the last nine months.
> 
> BTW, your next question wheres my degree from? MIT. Wheres your degree from?


Funny, you don't come off as an engineer. Most engineers see a design issue, figure out a better way to do it, do it, then revel in the fact that they made something work better than it did before. This is especially true when it is something like this, a luxury item. Face it pal, this isn't something that is going to hurt you or cause you significant financial loss. Enginneers spend days, weeks, months, even longer solving problems that most people wouldn't think twice about because we are driven to find a better way or better solution. That is the fun part. You don't come off as a real engineer. 
You are the reason everybody pays so much for insurance because of your litigious nature. You set yourself up to be flamed by making such a ridiculous suggestion about a product that most of us wish would be around for a lot longer than it will be. Why would any of us want to start legal action against DTV? Do you think we really want to give them any reason to dump the HR 10 completely. If they were faced with a ridiculous lawsuit such as you are suggesting, It might be cheaper for them to switch eveyone to the new thing than defend some piece of crap lawsuit like yours for years and years. Please go away, maybe you should take your thoughts to the "I like to sue for no reason" website. Maybe there is a forum there for you.


----------



## Fish Man

dvmar0503 said:


> Funny, you don't come off as an engineer.


He clearly isn't.

I'm an EE with RF design experience.

Loss in cable types like RG6 and RG59 at any given frequency is measured in dB per foot. (Or dB per meter, of course.)

The dB per foot loss of RG59 and RG6 at UHF television teresteral frequencies (the highest frequencies these cables are carrying) is on the order of 0.00<probably some more zeros and then finally non-zero digits> dB per foot.

*Eight inches* of RG59 has neglagable loss at these frequencies. The difference, when you're talking about 8 inches between RG6 and RG59 is absolutely nothing.

So, the ranting about RG59 vs. RG6 in this application proves he has no idea what he is talking about.

Now, if you got a unit with poorly made cables (and that can cause a noticable degradation), either change them or get a warranty replacement.

But, lawsuit? Gimme a break!


----------



## Budget_HT

Fish Man,

I totally agree with your facts-based views.

I am not an EE but I am a seasoned technician with an AASEE.

I was surprised when I received my first oval dish for DirecTV and it came with RG-59 patch cables to connect the LNB ports with the back-mounted multiswitch, until I thought about the 16" length involved and the effective zero attenuation.

I have spent much of my career in the telecom industry, supporting and troubleshooting VF/AF, RF/coax, microwave and fiber optic baseband transmission systems. Many people still don't understand how their local telco can pump more than 1 MB of data down a non-loaded, 26 guage copper cable pair, and actually more for shorter cable lengths.

Distance/length counts!


----------



## DrOrb

I've been tracking this thread, and decided to replace my splitter and use the shortest possible RG-6Q cable run inside the case. 

I would up generally improving the weak signals without impacting the stronger ones.

I posted the results and a few pictures on the web, but this board doesn't allow URLs- Sorry!

DrOrb


----------



## darthrsg

I just got my HR10-250 topless and my connections were loose. I re-connected and BOOM no more signal bounce. I may persue switching the cables out with RG6 later.


----------



## Budget_HT

Changing from RG-59 to RG-6 cables for these 12" (?) cables will NOT improve signal strength or quality. Properly terminated connectors and solid connections will make the big difference, if the prior ones were faulty or loose.


----------



## killerdc

I read through this entire thread and I think my head is spinning. I am a "computer geek" and I love playing around with this kind of stuff but I typically do that as a hobby not as profession. I guess I need to see if I need to change my set up. I live just outside the Dallas area and have one of those big arse antennas in the attic. Unfortunately, when getting it up there with all the rafters a few of the pieces got bent and one actually broke off. At the time, I didnt have a ladder (still dont) that will get me up two stories, so the attic was the only choice. It can get rather frustrating being up there in the middle of a texas summer day contorted into odd positions trying to get all the prongs extended....anyway, I run the cable from the antenna to the switch in the attic, and that wire is run to the bottom floor on my house. Its a rather long cable, and ultimately into the HR10-250. I cannot get all 4 locals, and get none of the UPN's etc... I can get ABC and CBS with no problems and with an occasional 1-2 second pixelation on ABC its watchable. I thought possibly antenna positioning was the problem, so I got up there and moved it around a bit and for a time it seemed better but now its back to just as bad if not worse. Do I need a new antenna, or would one of these ideas in this thread be better? ANy ideas would help.


----------



## bpratt

killerdc said:


> I read through this entire thread and I think my head is spinning. I am a "computer geek" and I love playing around with this kind of stuff but I typically do that as a hobby not as profession. I guess I need to see if I need to change my set up.  I live just outside the Dallas area and have one of those big arse antennas in the attic. Unfortunately, when getting it up there with all the rafters a few of the pieces got bent and one actually broke off. At the time, I didnt have a ladder (still dont) that will get me up two stories, so the attic was the only choice. It can get rather frustrating being up there in the middle of a texas summer day contorted into odd positions trying to get all the prongs extended....anyway, I run the cable from the antenna to the switch in the attic, and that wire is run to the bottom floor on my house. Its a rather long cable, and ultimately into the HR10-250. I cannot get all 4 locals, and get none of the UPN's etc... I can get ABC and CBS with no problems and with an occasional 1-2 second pixelation on ABC its watchable. I thought possibly antenna positioning was the problem, so I got up there and moved it around a bit and for a time it seemed better but now its back to just as bad if not worse. Do I need a new antenna, or would one of these ideas in this thread be better? ANy ideas would help.


Most of the HD OTA channels are broadcast on the UHF frequency and are then remaped to the VHF numbers. Most of the UHF antennas are not that big, even the long distance ones. Is your antenna a VHF only or does is also support UHF channels? You need a UHF antenna.

You can see what digital channels are available OTA in your area, and a recommended antenna using this site:
http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx


----------



## killerdc

I bought the antenna from Ultimate Electronics when I bought my HDTV about 2 years ago. I am guessing it is a UHF antenna but I have no idea. IT looks like this, in fact, this is prolly the one I bought. http://www.amazon.com/Terk-Technology-TV38-Outdoor-Antenna/dp/B0000B008U/sr=1-11/qid=1170106075/ref=sr_1_11/102-5416110-6373732?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

On antenna web though, it shows most of the local channels as vhf and not uhf, but I am assuming the digital counterparts are the .1's and only ABC is broadcast in vhf. In dallas channels 4, 5,8, and 11 are Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS respectively.

Would something like this be better?
http://www.pldepot.com/dta-3500.aspx

And back on topic of this, what tool is required for making a 1 foot RG6 cable? Im assuming a plain wire cutter crimper wont work?


----------



## dem

Encouraged by some of the reports in this thread, I stopped by my local Radio Shack yesterday and picked up a couple of pre-made 1 foot RG-6 cables, two F to RCA adapters, and a passive splitter.

Replacing the stock cables with the new ones but using the built-in splitter made no difference in my signal strengths, which bounce all over the place (one station bounces between 0 and 90 on both tuners).

Bypassing the built-in splitter with the new one _reduced_ the signal strength of all channels. I didn't expect that.

Looking closely at the built-in splitter I see a few pins soldered to the motherboard. Perhaps this splitter is also an amplifier?


----------



## dougwx12

No, but the splitter should be -3db for your signal. Possible causes for your symptoms that I can think of are too much gain or multipath. Are you really really close to your transmitter? Omnidirectional antenna?


----------



## TyroneShoes

dem said:


> ...Replacing the stock cables with the new ones but using the built-in splitter made no difference in my signal strengths, which bounce all over the place (one station bounces between 0 and 90 on both tuners).
> 
> Bypassing the built-in splitter with the new one _reduced_ the signal strength of all channels. I didn't expect that.
> 
> Looking closely at the built-in splitter I see a few pins soldered to the motherboard. Perhaps this splitter is also an amplifier?


As has been covered many times, some of them in this very thread, the module in question is a radio-frequency distribution amplifier. The RFDA is designed to provide unity gain and isolation (buffering) between inputs. Some of the success of using a passive hybrid splitter in place of it can be attributed to the -3dB loss that contributes to the system which the RFDA is specifically designed to make up for, ironically enough. The tuners themselves seem to be sensitive to overload, and in some scenarios dropping the level 3 dB is just what the doctor ordered. But of course you could add the splitter externally without ever cracking the HR10's case to determine that, which would be highly recommended before popping the hood and tinkering, because you may just fix things before you need to go that deep.

Wildly swinging signal quality readings is smoking-gun evidence of multipath interference, so the thing to do is replace a poor (for this application) antenna system with a better, more-directional system.

I can guarantee you that adding a 3 dB splitter will definitely make a 3 dB difference in actual RF carrier level, including in your case. It may have no affect at all on the SQR readings that Tivo gives you, because that does not measure carrier level, but relative success of packet decoding. And digital reception not being primarily affected by level (all you need is to be 15 dB above the noise floor and higher signal levels do not then increase SQR) will not usually be affected by a simple 3 dB change in carrier level. Dropping the carrier level by 3 dB will only help signals that are just a bit too strong for the tuner's window of operation, and so that as a fix is only good for a tiny fraction of folks who have reception problems. But adding a splitter is so easy as to still make it worth trying, as you have little to lose, and it rules out whether you have that particular problem or not, rare as it may be.

As far as the RG-6/59 thing, both are based on transmission-line technology, meaning they act essentially like a (very broadly-) tuned waveguide. And the specs, other than dB loss per foot (which most of us agree is negligible at these lengths) are absolutely identical. As long as it maintains its characteristic 75-ohm impedance, the source and destination look at either '6 or '59 as an infinite piece of cable or a fixed terminating load, and do not care how much loss it might have, only whether the level coming out it proper. The only other variable is shielding, which is also insignificant, and typically similar from RG-6 to RG-59.


----------



## killerdc

MOVED TO ANOTHER THREAD


----------



## dem

dougwx12 said:


> No, but the splitter should be -3db for your signal. Possible causes for your symptoms that I can think of are too much gain or multipath. Are you really really close to your transmitter? Omnidirectional antenna?


My antenna is certainly suspect. I'm in a bit of a valley, which doesn't help, and water seems to get into the balun no matter how I try to waterproof it (I've replaced the balun and RG-6 once or twice already). The next thing I try will be to run 300-ohm line to the antenna and locate the balun indoors.

I'm 25 miles from the transmitter. The antenna is a Winegard PR-8800 8-bay UHF bowtie. I've used it both with and without a mast-mounted amplifier (which is currently bypassed).


----------



## Greencat

Would replacing my RG59 antenna to Tivo run with RG6 make a difference? The run is about 100 feet? Would an amplifier help? I know there is no perfect answer. I guess what I am asking is how much of a loss could the RG59 cause and would the amplifier fix this or should I replace the wire. Generally all channels come in except CBS which everyone in the area has trouble with becasue of the distance and fequency.


----------



## stevel

100 feet of RG59? I'm amazed you get anything at all. Yes, replacing that with RG6 should make a noticeable difference.


----------



## tgibbs

TyroneShoes said:


> Wildly swinging signal quality readings is smoking-gun evidence of multipath interference, so the thing to do is replace a poor (for this application) antenna system with a better, more-directional system.
> 
> I can guarantee you that adding a 3 dB splitter will definitely make a 3 dB difference in actual RF carrier level, including in your case. It may have no affect at all on the SQR readings that Tivo gives you, because that does not measure carrier level, but relative success of packet decoding. And digital reception not being primarily affected by level (all you need is to be 15 dB above the noise floor and higher signal levels do not then increase SQR) will not usually be affected by a simple 3 dB change in carrier level. Dropping the carrier level by 3 dB will only help signals that are just a bit too strong for the tuner's window of operation, and so that as a fix is only good for a tiny fraction of folks who have reception problems. But adding a splitter is so easy as to still make it worth trying, as you have little to lose, and it rules out whether you have that particular problem or not, rare as it may be.


When I got my Series 3, I wondered whether I could split my OTA antenna signal for the two units, since my signal quality on the 10-250 was marginal for several channels. In fact, I got high SQ on the Series 3, while SQ on the 10-250 did not seem to suffer at all. This fits with my belief that my 10-250 SQ issues are due to multipath and not to signal strength (and yes, the SQ on the 10-250 tends to fluctuate).


----------



## restino

Can anybody explain to me how they are getting ther OTA signals?

Doe most people get it from an attena on top of their box, or their roof or do they use the 5-LNB dish to get the local channels?

Thanks


----------



## newsposter

restino said:


> Can anybody explain to me how they are getting ther OTA signals?
> 
> Doe most people get it from an attena on top of their box, or their roof or do they use the 5-LNB dish to get the local channels?
> 
> Thanks


all are possible. I have antenna on roof. If you are close you just need antenna on tv. If you are in condo/apt you may need just the dish. But techincally dish is not OTA


----------



## restino

forgive my ignorance, but if you can get the HD channels from the dish thats already on your roof why even bother using atennas?

boy do i need a lesson in HD signals lol.


----------



## rminsk

restino said:


> forgive my ignorance, but if you can get the HD channels from the dish thats already on your roof why even bother using atennas?


Less compression than DirecTV HD, mpeg-2. sub-channels, free, all the locals you can receive not just the ones DirecTV determines are in your area, ...


----------



## Lee L

rminsk said:


> Less compression than DirecTV HD, mpeg-2. sub-channels, free, all the locals you can receive not just the ones DirecTV determines are in your area, ...


And the main thing about them being mpeg-2 is that you can pick them up using the HR10-250 with the TiVo software instead of having to use the HR20 with DirecTV's software.


----------



## Joe Jensen

restino said:


> Can anybody explain to me how they are getting ther OTA signals?
> 
> Doe most people get it from an attena on top of their box, or their roof or do they use the 5-LNB dish to get the local channels?
> 
> Thanks


I have a Terk bar style antenna mounted on outside of the 2nd story of my house. I used this antenna for years for OTA SD. It has maybe 100 feet of RG59 cable running between the antenna and the HR10-250. I've had 90 or signal strength since I installed the HR10-250. I do have slightly different signal strength between the two tuners, and I'm replacing a power supply for a differnet problem, so I'll check to see that all connections are solid...joe


----------



## restino

does that mean that the mpeg2 is better then something else? little confused still. isnt there mpeg4 now?

was wondering also about why a person would want a hr20 new now instead of a hr10-250. is there any good reason to it - even though it doesnt have tivo which we love. maybe it will do things the hr10-250 wont?


----------



## Lee L

Mpeg 4 can look just as good as Mpeg 2. however, any time there is a new way to compress things a little more, there is always a little tendency to push it. Up until now, DirecTV has unashamedly altered teh signals of HBO, HDNet and others to save space using Mpeg 2 and insinuated that it was too bad so sad for us. Also, the signal has to be recieved by DireCtv, then processed to mpeg 4, which could cause inadvertent picture issues.

If you use an antenna, you are receiving the signal direct from your local affiliate, so ther eis no possiblity of it getting fouled up along the way.

As far as my setup, I have a $35 UHF antenna in my attic and I receive everything I want. You can go to www.antenaweb.org for info on your location.

Chekc over at www.dbstalk.com for info on teh HR20, but so far, it has not proven to be ver reliable at recroding things, so I would say that is a major drawback IMO.


----------



## shanman14

I am 10 miles from the towers that broadcast all of my locals. Here are the *set-top * antennas I have tried with my HR10:
























Here are the *attic-mounted * antennas I've tried with my HR10:
















The antenna I still have is on the bottom, right. I opened up my HR10 and reseated the cables from the OTA coax splitter to the tuners. Here are my results:

*Before*
ABC - Weak signal, not really watchable
NBC - Good signal, little to no drop-outs
CBS - No signal
FOX - No signal

*After*
ABC - Good signal, little to no drop-outs
NBC - Almost no signal, not watchable
CBS - No signal
FOX - No signal

My antenna setup did not change, the only thing I did was plug and unplug the 12" RG59 cables. And the frustration continues!

FWIW - My TV's ATSC tuner can take the same antenna signal and get all of the above stations, plus PBS and CW.


----------



## tgibbs

From the point of view of a broadcaster, mpeg4 is better, because it has better compression and consumes less bandwidth for the same quality. From the point of view of the consumer, mpeg-4 capability, which the HR20 has and the HR10 lacks, will allow you to pick up the new HD channels which DirecTV is adding, but the HR20 software does not seem to be as good as TiVo's.


----------



## wkearney99

Same quality? That's debatable. HR20 not as good as the HR10? Now THERE'S a stunning grasp of the obvious.


----------



## tgibbs

I have both a HR10 and a Series 3 hooked up to the same roof antenna via an external passive splitter, and the Series 3 gets clearly better reception. My impression is that it is less sensitive to multipath. It is clearly not a signal strength issue, as putting in the splitter did not affect the HR10's signal quality at all. I also once tried an attenuator on the line, and found that I could put in quite a bit of attenuation without any effect on signal quality. I've looked at the cables inside two HR10's and both were firmly attached, but I suppose it is barely possible that they could have been badly assembled or jarred loose in shipping. If signal strength is different for the two tuners, it might be worth taking a look inside.

As I mentioned, the main weakness of the HR10's tuner seems to be mulitpath. It's probably worth trying an attenuator (they're cheap), both because some people close to broadcast antennas have reported it to be beneficial, and it can tell you whether you have a signal strength issue. If adding attenuation immediately causes a loss in signal quality, then you need a better antenna or an amplifier.

If your signal quality fluctuates a lot, it is more likely multipath. If possible (i.e. if the broadcast antennas are all in the same general direction), get a directional antenna and play with the angle. Pointing it directly at the broadcast antenna will not necessarily give you the best picture quality, as you need the angle that gives you best rejection of multiple reflected signals.


----------



## TyroneShoes

stevel said:


> 100 feet of RG59? I'm amazed you get anything at all. Yes, replacing that with RG6 should make a noticeable difference.


As far as signal levels go, RG-6 is good for 150 feet. Since RG-6 has about 75% of the attenuation at frequency of RG-59, RG-59 should be fine for at least 100 ft. The only thing noticeable, assuming you have a well-aimed dish, properly-operating LNBF, and direct line of sight, would be a tiny bit more rain-fade margin. That will only be a "noticeable difference" for a few minutes a year, unless you live in Seattle.

But, RG-6 also has less loop resistance than RG-59, which means that long runs can drop the voltage from STB to LNB, and cause switching problems. But unless you have lots of sat channel dropouts or switching issues, replacing cabling less than 100 ft. with RG-6 won't really buy you much, and if you do have such problems, it still might not be of much help.

If you have dropouts on sat channels regularly, maybe there is a component of the system that just isn't operating up to snuff. Replacing the cable with RG-6 could improve things in that case, but possibly not. Since that is typically a time-consuming and expensive undertaking, you may try an in-line L-band amp first. Of course it must pass DC.

Bottom line, RG-6 is generally spec'd because in a tiny fraction of install situations it will work better. In all other (most) situations, RG-59 will work absolutely as well as RG-6. Buying or installing, always use RG-6, simply because it doesn't cost more, is physically hardier, and can give you a bit more fade margin. But if you already have a '59 install, upgrading may be a fool's errand, depending upon the situation, and 100 ft or less of RG-59 does not likely put you in the category where upgrading is likely to pay off. IOW, I'd do the easier stuff first.


----------



## imadvaddict

rminsk said:


> Less compression than DirecTV HD, mpeg-2. sub-channels, free, all the locals you can receive not just the ones DirecTV determines are in your area, ...


Wait Scotti, do not beam me up quite yet, there may be intelligent lifeforms here after all.

We are signal testing the 11.875 inch RG's and there "is" a very significant difference
between RG-6 and RG-59 signal strength within the HR-10-250. This testing is being done on real time installed units.

When we are done we will post.

As it stands right now RG-6 is winning hands down. Which reflects a definite "ENGINEERING" problem.

We have not even entered the splitters into the equation as of yet


----------



## bpratt

imadvaddict said:


> Wait Scotti, do not beam me up quite yet, there may be intelligent lifeforms here after all.
> 
> We are signal testing the 11.875 inch RG's and there "is" a very significant difference
> between RG-6 and RG-59 signal strength within the HR-10-250. This testing is being done on real time installed units.
> 
> When we are done we will post.
> 
> As it stands right now RG-6 is winning hands down. Which reflects a definite "ENGINEERING" problem.
> 
> We have not even entered the splitters into the equation as of yet


You had better re-check your readings. I agree with TyroneShoes that there is little difference in short runs of cable between RG-59 and RG-6. About two years ago my brother did a signal test with 50 feet of RG-6, RG-6 quad shield, RG-59 and RG-59 plenum cable. There was about 2% difference in the 4 cables he tested with RG-6 quad shied having the most signal loss.


----------



## Budget_HT

imadvaddict said:


> Wait Scotti, do not beam me up quite yet, there may be intelligent lifeforms here after all.
> 
> We are signal testing the 11.875 inch RG's and there "is" a very significant difference
> between RG-6 and RG-59 signal strength within the HR-10-250. This testing is being done on real time installed units.
> 
> When we are done we will post.
> 
> As it stands right now RG-6 is winning hands down. Which reflects a definite "ENGINEERING" problem.
> 
> We have not even entered the splitters into the equation as of yet


I would be suspicious of the connectors and/or their installation on the RG-59 cables being bad, or perhaps some other form of corrosion is at play here.

IMHO, more than 90% of "cable" problems are really connector problems.

Certainly each cable "assembly" (including the factory-installed connectors) should be expected to work up to spec's, but assuming the difference in cable type is the culprit is ignoring the realities of connector and installation issues far outnumbering problems in the cable itself. Perhaps the original cables have been kinked (bent too tightly) somewhere along the way.

My only point is that the differences in cable performance between 12" RG-59 and RG-6, especially at broadcast TV frequencies, is too small to make any difference.


----------



## TyroneShoes

I think I can put to bed any further speculation. According to these spec sheets:

http://www.timesfiber.com/pdfs/Cable Specifications/59-dropcable.pdf

http://www.timesfiber.com/pdfs/Cable Specifications/6-dropcable.pdf

from Times Fiber, a common vendor of RG-6/59 drop cable, the nominal loss at 1k for '6 is 6.55 dB p/100 ft., while the loss for '59 is 8.12 dB, which fits with my earlier assertion of '6 having roughly about 3/4ths the attenuation or cable loss of '59 (actually the difference is slightly less). That means the difference in signal loss for a chunk just shy of one foot would amount to about one-hundredth of a dB for OTA UHF frequencies. Since received terrestrial carrier levels can easily vary well over 1000 times that much from daypart to daypart, even within the same channel, those of us who think that this might actually matter are really beating Barbaro pretty soundly.


----------



## JimSpence

DrOrb said:


> ...
> I posted the results and a few pictures on the web, but this board doesn't allow URLs- Sorry!
> 
> DrOrb


It's not that this board doesn't allow URLs to be posted, but that you have to have 5 posts before you can. So please post a few more times and then share that URL.


----------



## litzdog911

TyroneShoes said:


> I think I can put to bed any further speculation. According to these spec sheets:
> 
> http://www.timesfiber.com/pdfs/Cable Specifications/59-dropcable.pdf
> 
> http://www.timesfiber.com/pdfs/Cable Specifications/6-dropcable.pdf
> 
> from Times Fiber, a common vendor of RG-6/59 drop cable, the nominal loss at 1k for '6 is 6.55 dB p/100 ft., while the loss for '59 is 8.12 dB, which fits with my earlier assertion of '6 having roughly about 3/4ths the attenuation or cable loss of '59 (actually the difference is slightly less). That means the difference in signal loss for a chunk just shy of one foot would amount to about one-hundredth of a dB for OTA UHF frequencies. Since received terrestrial carrier levels can easily vary well over 1000 times that much from daypart to daypart, even within the same channel, those of us who think that this might actually matter are really beating Barbaro pretty soundly.


Oh my!!!   

That 0.01dB difference might just explain everyone's problems!!!


----------



## aaronwt

Defintely worth a lawsuit!


----------

