Poor upstairs TV signal

[treacletown08]

Hello

My upstairs TV gives me a 10% signal strength but its quality is 90% with a USB booster fitted. Although I can find over 100 channels most of them break up when I try to watch them.

How can I sort this out please?

Thank you

 

[winston1]

Much more information needed. Where are you? What transmitter are you served by? I assume you are using a roof aerial as the broadcasters recommend. Do you have another TV downstairs that is OK? If so does it use the same aerial?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

My upstairs TV gives me a 10% signal strength but its quality is 90% with a USB booster fitted.

'Upstairs TV' - does that mean you have a downstairs TV which works fine?

 

[treacletown08]

We are on the Allesley Park, Coventry transmitter as we live in Nuneaton. Our downstairs TV which runs off the same roof aerial is fine. After sending my original message last night, I did a first time installation and the BBC channels are all fine and have 90% plus for signal quality and strength but I cannot even find the ITV, C4 and C5 channels.

Thank you.

 

[FrodoOne]

We are on the Allesley Park, Coventry transmitter as we live in Nuneaton. Our downstairs TV which runs off the same roof aerial is fine. After sending my original message last night, I did a first time installation and the BBC channels are all fine and have 90% plus for signal quality and strength but I cannot even find the ITV, C4 and C5 channels.

Thank you.

You have a "good quality" TV signal from a "roof top" antenna to your "downstairs" TV.
All that you need to do is to "send" that TV signal to anywhere on your premises to which you need to have any such signal.
For this you will need a good quality co-axial cable (such as RG6) from one point to the other and (at least) a "TV Signal Splitter", at the "source".

However, any such "TV Signal Splitter" will introduce a loss. (50% each way)
Hence, you may need to install an "Amplified Splitter", to compensate for any such "Loss".

Installing a "booster" at the "downhill" end is useless - it will only amplify any problems !

Any "booster" or "amplified splitter" should be installed where the signal is "strong", to send it on its way "at strength".


First, install the appropriate Co-Axial cable and a simple (cheap) 2-way TV Splitter.
If BOTH TV signals are then weak, invest in an amplified splitter, and throw the cheap splitter away. (Cut your losses.)

 

[treacletown08]

After some investigation, the cable from my roof aerial comes into the loft where it splits into two to supply the lounge downstairs and the master bedroom. I placed the source cable into my amplifier and now have nearly 100% for both quality and level to both TVs with clear and great picture clarity.

Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction.

 

[Lucid]

You have a "good quality" TV signal from a "roof top" antenna to your "downstairs" TV.
All that you need to do is to "send" that TV signal to anywhere on your premises to which you need to have any such signal.
For this you will need a good quality co-axial cable (such as RG6) from one point to the other and (at least) a "TV Signal Splitter", at the "source".

However, any such "TV Signal Splitter" will introduce a loss. (50% each way)
Hence, you may need to install an "Amplified Splitter", to compensate for any such "Loss".

Installing a "booster" at the "downhill" end is useless - it will only amplify any problems !

Any "booster" or "amplified splitter" should be installed where the signal is "strong", to send it on its way "at strength".


First, install the appropriate Co-Axial cable and a simple (cheap) 2-way TV Splitter.
If BOTH TV signals are then weak, invest in an amplified splitter, and throw the cheap splitter away. (Cut your losses.)

This is a minor point on an otherwise good post, by "RG6" doesn't mean anything in terms of cable quality other than some shielded 75 Ohm Coaxial with a 1mm core and approx 6.7mm OD (even that description is probably overstating a 'spec').

'RG' comes from the Radio Guide, a catalogue of cables dating back sometime around WWII IIRC. It was superceded sometime in the '70s because the jobs cables had to do were increasing, and so specifications and cable performance needed better descriptions. The RG designations stuck as a useful shorthand, but there's now a broad spectrum of cable qualities under the 'RG6' banner from good stuff such as Webro WF100, Triax TX100, Labgear PF100 - all 100% copper cables with metal foil shielding - through to the generic RG6 'low loss coax' sold to bodgers and electricians where the core is steel and the braid and 'foil' shielding turns out to be aluminium and Mylar plastic. Not only does this RG6 shielding dissolve in the presence of moisture, but the cable itself is also typically lossier so there's less signal from the source after it passes through.

 

[FrodoOne]

This is a minor point on an otherwise good post, by "RG6" doesn't mean anything in terms of cable quality other than some shielded 75 Ohm Coaxial with a 1mm core and approx 6.7mm OD (even that description is probably overstating a 'spec').

'RG' comes from the Radio Guide, a catalogue of cables dating back sometime around WWII IIRC. It was superceded sometime in the '70s because the jobs cables had to do were increasing, and so specifications and cable performance needed better descriptions. The RG designations stuck as a useful shorthand, but there's now a broad spectrum of cable qualities under the 'RG6' banner from good stuff such as Webro WF100, Triax TX100, Labgear PF100 - all 100% copper cables with metal foil shielding - through to the generic RG6 'low loss coax' sold to bodgers and electricians where the core is steel and the braid and 'foil' shielding turns out to be aluminium and Mylar plastic. Not only does this RG6 shielding dissolve in the presence of moisture, but the cable itself is also typically lossier so there's less signal from the source after it passes through.

Thank you for your comments and the information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-6 has certain other "information" !)
I do realise that "cables" come at various levels of "quality" and (usually) "you get what you pay for"

"Generic" RG-6 cable has (supposedly). less "loss" than a RG-59 cable of similar construction - from the same manufacturer.
RG-6 cable is "heavier" than RG-59 and thus a bit more difficult to work with.


I live in a "strong" signal area (about 25 km from the TV transmitters) so I have used RG-6 cable mainly only when "required" by certain "Cable TV" companies and our NBN to extend their signal.
For "off-air" signals I have found that RG-59 cable has been quite satisfactory - in this area.

As an aside from this, with Digital TV it is possible to have too strong a signal.

I had a friend with a house about 15 km from the local TV transmitters and I installed about 8 TV outlets in the Bedrooms, Lounge and Kitchen of the house concerned, using an amplified splitter, plus other passive splitters - and all was well.
This was installed in the "analog TV" days but it continued to work through the "digital TV" transition.

When she moved to a house about 5 km closer to the transmitters, which house had only one TV socket at the time, I installed a similar set-up.
When I first tested this set-up on the same TVs used previously, I found that the "amplified" signal had pushed the TVs concerned over the "digital cliff" the other way and that they were "overloaded" with signal.
Of course, I just removed the amplified splitter, replaced it with a passive splitter and all was well - and it still is.

It goes to show - you can have too much of a good thing !

 

[Lucid]

Thank you for your comments and the information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-6 has certain other "information" !)
I do realise that "cables" come at various levels of "quality" and (usually) "you get what you pay for"

To be fair to Wikipedia, the information it carries is contributed by readers. It can vary in quality and be subject to spats between authors of different opinions, so it's always wise to doublecheck against reference sources. That said, I don't have any real problems with the article on RG-6.

"Generic" RG-6 cable has (supposedly). less "loss" than a RG-59 cable of similar construction - from the same manufacturer.
RG-6 cable is "heavier" than RG-59 and thus a bit more difficult to work with.

Well, RG6-sized cables are thicker. That's one of the parts of the RG6 spec that can be relied upon. So it's no real surprise then that it's a little less bendy than typical RG59-sized coax cables. The loss characteristics though need to be read from the spec sheets for the specific cables.

In general terms 'RG-59' used to be more suitable for baseband video applications. Someone with cable TV - which in the UK could go down to- or close to- 5MHz (e.g. Milton Keynes CATV service IIRC) then RG59 would be the preferred choice. In the U.S. it was common to find home owners and installation companies using RG59. I think that might have been to do with their TV system being dual-band; VHF and UHF.

Times and cable specs have changed though, but habits and ingrained knowledge takes longer to change. It's not hard to find 'RG6' with superior low frequency attenuation characteristics than 'RG59'.

I live in a "strong" signal area (about 25 km from the TV transmitters) so I have used RG-6 cable mainly only when "required" by certain "Cable TV" companies and our NBN to extend their signal.
For "off-air" signals I have found that RG-59 cable has been quite satisfactory - in this area.

As an aside from this, with Digital TV it is possible to have too strong a signal.

I had a friend with a house about 15 km from the local TV transmitters and I installed about 8 TV outlets in the Bedrooms, Lounge and Kitchen of the house concerned, using an amplified splitter, plus other passive splitters - and all was well.
This was installed in the "analog TV" days but it continued to work through the "digital TV" transition.

When she moved to a house about 5 km closer to the transmitters, which house had only one TV socket at the time, I installed a similar set-up.
When I first tested this set-up on the same TVs used previously, I found that the "amplified" signal had pushed the TVs concerned over the "digital cliff" the other way and that they were "overloaded" with signal.
Of course, I just removed the amplified splitter, replaced it with a passive splitter and all was well - and it still is.

It goes to show - you can have too much of a good thing !

In the UK - which is where this forum's contributors are mostly based - those of us who are professionals use RG6-sized coax for all TV and satellite installations if possible. The exception is for satellite TV. The company installers for Sky have been using a thin twin (shotgun) cable for over a decade. Each coax has a 4.8mm diameter. It's lossier, but recommended only for use on shorter runs.

RG59 can be bought, but all the competitively-priced fitting hardware for TV/Sat installs such as Belling Lee RF plugs and F-plugs are all designed to accommodate the 6.5-6.7mm OD of an RG6-sized coax. There's very little reason to buy RG59 for TV/Sat work. The other issue here is that generic RG59 might only be single shielded. That won't do for TV/Sat installations.

We had (and still have) similar experiences in the UK with too much signal level. Back when DVB-T was being phased in the service ran alongside analogue but at a much lower power. It was quite common to require amplification at the aerial mast in order to get sufficient signal for digital TV reception. Analogue was quite tolerant of the boost in level.

During the transition phase as analogue was switched off the digital signal power was increased to what would be its normal operating level. Lots of people found that they had signal break-up, and incorrectly diagnosed low signal level when it was too much signal.