Any lnb test reviews lately?

[Spc..]

Yes is tested-look here and use translate croatian.

LNB-test

Post 690 - and you read on

I understand croatian.
Thanks for the link.

Pozdrav iz Maribora.

 

[cwsat]

Seems like the original IBU still out performs the new PLL in most situations.

LNB performance is strange I must say.

In the past 6 months I have tried.....

Inverto Black Ultra (Original)
TM-1 Gold 0.1db
Darkgold 0.1db
Golden Media GM201 0.1db
Inverto Blue Premium PLL

My findings were the Golden Media runs the Inverto incredibly close on feeds and across high powered transponders performs slightly better. (13e and 28.2e)

The TM-1 Gold is a weird LNB. It won awards for it's performance and on 16e, 13e and 28.2e it performs incredibly well. Noticeable leaps in signal quality on 28.2e especially, yet on feeds, 1w Nordic beam and 8w I noticed it really lacked compared to the IBU and the GM201. I lost 8w completely and thought it was due to dish alignment. It came back with the IBU and GM201 with a significant leap in strength and quality.

The Darkgold is quite a solid performer but it died in literally 2 weeks. I had my original for 7 years but this replacement gave up. It's feed performance isn't quite good as the GM201 and the IBU but on high powered transponders it blows away the rest. Signal quality readings on 28.2e none of the other LNB's could compete.

The Blue PLL was pretty consistent, but down on the GM201 and IBU on feeds. You don't get the huge swings in quality on 28.2e, 13e, 19.2e like you do on the DarkGold and TM-1 Gold. Why those LNB's perform like that, I don't know.

I actually have another DarkGold coming to put it up against the GM201.

Hopefully this one lasts longer than 2 weeks.

I did notice on my meter whilst on certain TP's, the IBU's signal quality was down compared to the GM, it always matched it or bettered it on signal strength.

For the IBU to perform, I had to push it a fair bit forward in the LNB collar (onto the LNB's spec label).

 

[Beli1910]

Potem tudi lep pozdrav v Maribor.

I understand croatian.
Thanks for the link.

Pozdrav iz Maribora.

Potem tud en lep pozdrav v Maribor.
I'm from Sevnica

 

[jeallen01]

PS from me to post

...For the IBU to perform, I had to push it a fair bit forward in the LNB collar (onto the LNB's spec label).

PS from me about the above sentence in post #82:

This seems to be another example of where the available "in/out" adjustment of an LNB is limited by a combination the length the "sliding" section of the LNB neck and the length of the feedarm.

Over the years forum members have come across a number of situations like this, and sometimes had to resort to "bodges" (like adding a spacer between the arm & LNB holder!) to try to compensate for the problem - and the end results vary quite a lot according to which combination of LNB & feedarm one is dealing with"
(IIRC @william-1 has done a few experiments on this issue, and so he may be able to provide more info on this aspect of the setup of dishes & LNBs)

And we've even also come across a few cases of the angle between the dish face and the feedarm, as well as the length of the feedarm, being apparently incorrect and thus the LNB was mounted too close/far to the dish face and thus was not pointing at the correct point on the face (owners of Gibertini dishes please take note as I identified that problem when the UK supplier had sold the wrong - i.e. too short!! - feedarm for the dish in question!)

 

[Beli1910]

Yes, there are some antennas that factory have a bad antenna focus or G point. Gibertini, Old ChanelMaster 120 etc.

 

[cwsat]

PS from me to post

PS from me about the above sentence in post #82:

This seems to be another example of where the available "in/out" adjustment of an LNB is limited by a combination the length the "sliding" section of the LNB neck and the length of the feedarm.

Over the years forum members have come across a number of situations like this, and sometimes had to resort to "bodges" (like adding a spacer between the arm & LNB holder!) to try to compensate for the problem - and the end results vary quite a lot according to which combination of LNB & feedarm one is dealing with"
(IIRC @william-1 has done a few experiments on this issue, and so he may be able to provide more info on this aspect of the setup of dishes & LNBs)

And we've even also come across a few cases of the angle between the dish face and the feedarm, as well as the length of the feedarm, being apparently incorrect and thus the LNB was mounted too close/far to the dish face and thus was not pointing at the correct point on the face (owners of Gibertini dishes please take note as I identified that problem when the UK supplier had sold the wrong - i.e. too short!! - feedarm for the dish in question!)

I have tried removing the LNB holder and moving the GM201 more forward by hand, with a meter round my neck. It makes the strength and quality worse.

What you say has plenty of substance though. I followed William-1 and his issue and have noticed on other dishes being advertised second hand online that have IBU’s, they are pushed forward on those too!

 

[Spc..]

Seems like the original IBU still out performs the new PLL in most situations.

Interesting.
Have you been testing both ultras ?
- Old Ultra
- New Ultra

I don't think you can compare Inverto Blue Premium PLL to Ultra, as ultra is always better than premium.
On spec sheets new ultra is arround 10dB better than old ultra and has better freqency stabilisation.

If you compare old ultra to new premium (from the specs sheet):
- New PLL premium already has 7dB less conversion gain than old ultra.
- Noise figure is 0.7dB min to 1dB on premium, while old ultra has 0.2dB to 0.7dB.

which makes old ultra better than any premium inverto LNB.

Old Utra:




New Ultra:

 

[cwsat]

Interesting.
Have you been testing both ultras ?
- Old Ultra
- New Ultra

I don't think you can compare Inverto Blue Premium PLL to Ultra, as ultra is always better than premium.
On spec sheets new ultra is arround 10dB better than old ultra and has better freqency stabilisation.

If you compare old ultra to new premium (from the specs sheet):
- New PLL premium already has 7dB less conversion gain than old ultra.
- Noise figure is 0.7dB min to 1dB on premium, while old ultra has 0.2dB to 0.7dB.

which makes old ultra better than any premium inverto LNB.

Old Utra:
View attachment 149632
View attachment 149635


New Ultra:
View attachment 149634
View attachment 149636

I haven’t used a new PLL Ultra personally but must have read those benchmark tests wrong on the site posted.

I personally compared the Blue PLL as it gets a good rep on various Sat forums for being a good performer. On some TP’s it matched the other LNB’s. On others it was massively down and that’s where the gain comes in I guess.

 

[Spc..]

I haven’t used a new PLL Ultra personally but must have read those benchmark tests wrong on the site posted.

I personally compared the Blue PLL as it gets a good rep on various Sat forums for being a good performer. On some TP’s it matched the other LNB’s. On others it was massively down and that’s where the gain comes in I guess.

Ok, i ordeded two new ultras, i'll compare results with old ultra model.

 

[cwsat]

Ok, i ordeded two new ultras, i'll compare results with old ultra model.

Let us all know how you get on.

 

[Beli1910]

Test of Lnbs - Old Ultra and new.

 

[cwsat]

Test of Lnbs - Old Ultra and new.

Very interesting and kind of replicates what I have seen others saying online. The long neck on the old Black Ultra means it performs better on certain dishes than the new.

The new IBU seems to like 1west.

 

[Beli1910]

The most interesting thing is that Inverto Black Ultra has very bad results in the 10.7-11.2 Ghz range and even more interesting is that it has excellent results in the High band.
This has been known for a long time, but Ibu is still number 1 for motorized antennas. But not single, but twin. If I compare the old and new Ibu, the old one still has a slight advantage. Regarding the inverto premium pro and home, they are average lnb- a. Both give a good signal at 0.8W.

 

[cwsat]

The most interesting thing is that Inverto Black Ultra has very bad results in the 10.7-11.2 Ghz range and even more interesting is that it has excellent results in the High band.
This has been known for a long time, but Ibu is still number 1 for motorized antennas. But not single, but twin. If I compare the old and new Ibu, the old one still has a slight advantage. Regarding the inverto premium pro and home, they are average lnb- a. Both give a good signal at 0.8W.

I have seen others mention the twin out performs the single. Is there a logical reason for it?

The neck is shorter too?

 

[ozumo]

My original IBU singles outperform twins on the weakest signals, not by much though.

 

[Beli1910]

Ozumo See how much the Ibu single outperforms the ibu Twin in the 10.7-11.2 Ghz range. Or compare the Ibu single in this range with ordinary Lnbs. You can use 19E-13E and tell me what result you will get.

 

[cwsat]

I put my DarkGold 0.1db on my dish earlier to see how it performed against the Golden Media.

Weird results..........

On the strong sats, 28.2e, 19.2e and 13e it trounced the Golden Media.

Prime example is 10714H 22000 on 28.2e - a 6% swing in signal quality.

At 0.8W and 8W the Golden Media was a good 3-5% better on signal quality and strength than the DarkGold.

Noted, on the meter on strength, the GM201 was consistently a couple of % stronger than the DarkGold, it's just for some reason on strong transponders, the DarkGold really performs well quality wise.

 

[Spc..]

Here it is.

 

[Spc..]

It is very small comapred to old ultra black model.
I'll test performance today.

I guess PLL is the reason of weight and size reduction, which is way better for windy conditions.

 

[Beli1910]

Now you can test.