Franky_D
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 3
- Age
- 47
- Location
- Copenhagen, Denmark
- My Satellite Setup
- Channel Master 1.2m (36E, 28.2E), Humax 3000s
- My Location
- Copenhagen
Part One
Once I decided to check if channel master matching feed horn provides any added value compared to an LNBf. I’ve read a lot of opinions on forums but the easiest was to check for myself.
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dish: Channel Master 1.2m
For this matter I compared:
- Invacom SNH-031 (LNBf) vs SNF-031 (flange C120); and
- Inverto Black Pro Circular LNBf 0.2 dB vs Inverto Black flange C120.
I pointed the dish to two different satellites (one after the other) for more objective results (fringe reception for both):
- 36E (Eutelsat 4W and Eutelsat 7W);
- 28.2E (Astra 2F and 1N).
As a result it was pretty much clear that feed horn can improve quality of the signal (C/N or SNR) by at least 0.3-0.5 dB, and up to 1-1.5 dB (smart combination of feed horn and LNB for a specific task). This is a lot for someone at the edge of a footprint!!!
I have to make few notes here to help understand results better:
At the same time this was a chance to compare how flange/C120 Invacom perform compared to flange/C120 Inverto. And to make it more [SIZE=12.222222328186035px]interesting[/SIZE], I added few more flange C120 LNBs to the test:
- Smart twin modified to C120 flange
- Octagon quad modified to C120 flange
- NJR 2784H 10.95-11.7 GHz, LO 10.00 GHz, NF 1.0dB
- NJR 2754H 12.25-12.75 GHz, LO 11.30 GHz, NF 1.0dB
- SMW 1208 11.7-12.75 GHz, LO 10.75, NF 0.65 dB
Octagon and Smart Titanium were kindly provided for the test by cosworth4x4 from satpimps.com (http://www.satpimps.com/showthread.php?153388-lnb-tests-smart-tit-black-ultra-invacom-twin-c120-invacom-quad-c120)
As a result of the test:
I hope someone will find these results helpful!
Once I decided to check if channel master matching feed horn provides any added value compared to an LNBf. I’ve read a lot of opinions on forums but the easiest was to check for myself.
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dish: Channel Master 1.2m
For this matter I compared:
- Invacom SNH-031 (LNBf) vs SNF-031 (flange C120); and
- Inverto Black Pro Circular LNBf 0.2 dB vs Inverto Black flange C120.
I pointed the dish to two different satellites (one after the other) for more objective results (fringe reception for both):
- 36E (Eutelsat 4W and Eutelsat 7W);
- 28.2E (Astra 2F and 1N).
As a result it was pretty much clear that feed horn can improve quality of the signal (C/N or SNR) by at least 0.3-0.5 dB, and up to 1-1.5 dB (smart combination of feed horn and LNB for a specific task). This is a lot for someone at the edge of a footprint!!!
I have to make few notes here to help understand results better:
- Should I have used different feed horns for different frequency ranges (10.7-11.7 and 11.7-12.7) improvement provided by feed horn use would have been bigger (I was a bit in a rush that day, trying to perform too many tests). See results of different types/generations of Channel Master matching feed horns tests in my previous thread: http://www.satellites.co.uk/forums/topic/158555-different-generations-of-channel-master-matching-feed-horns-put-to-test/
- Although SNH-031 and SNF-031 should be in principle the same LNB (i mean electronically, with the exception of the wave guide part), the tested SNH-031 happened to be a bit more successful one – with approx 5 dB higher gain and lower noise [SIZE=12.222222328186035px]throughout[/SIZE] the whole range. See attached certificates with test results for these specific LNBs (came in boxes with them). Should I had SNH-031 and SNF-031 with identical gain and noise, improvement provided by feed horn would have been bigger;
- In perfect sunny/clear weather conditions improvement provided by a feed horn is less than on a cloudy day. I had to re-test few transponders on a cloudy day and for example a) difference in SNR between Inverto Black Pro Circular LNBf and SNF-031+feedhorn was 1,3 dB compared to only 0.5 dB on a sunny day; difference in SNR between SNH-031 and SNF-031+feedhorn was 0.8 dB compared to only 0.2 dB on a sunny day.
At the same time this was a chance to compare how flange/C120 Invacom perform compared to flange/C120 Inverto. And to make it more [SIZE=12.222222328186035px]interesting[/SIZE], I added few more flange C120 LNBs to the test:
- Smart twin modified to C120 flange
- Octagon quad modified to C120 flange
- NJR 2784H 10.95-11.7 GHz, LO 10.00 GHz, NF 1.0dB
- NJR 2754H 12.25-12.75 GHz, LO 11.30 GHz, NF 1.0dB
- SMW 1208 11.7-12.75 GHz, LO 10.75, NF 0.65 dB
Octagon and Smart Titanium were kindly provided for the test by cosworth4x4 from satpimps.com (http://www.satpimps.com/showthread.php?153388-lnb-tests-smart-tit-black-ultra-invacom-twin-c120-invacom-quad-c120)
As a result of the test:
- Invacom SNF-031 with feed horn outperformed others in the range 11.7-12.7 both linear and circular polarization signals (even though the tested one was not the “fastest scooter on the peer” among other batches);
- Inverto Black C120 was not consistent at all (there were few peaks) and overall significantly (0.8-1 d behind the Invacom Single C120 ;
- Moded Smart and Octagon performed best of all in 10.7-11.7 GHz linear polarization. Octagon remained also generally strong in 11.7-12.7 GHz. Considering price for Smart and Octagon – it’s not bad performance at all!!! Good value for the money!!!
- NJR and SMW LNBs did not impress me. Either they are meant for other purposes (data transmission purposes, etc) due to their LO stability, or the tested ones were a bit outdated and with their 1dB noise they could not compete with others.
I hope someone will find these results helpful!