el bandido
11-28-2013, 04:54 PM
Do I really need a narrow band lnb for a wide band signal???
There is a line of lnbs that have recently been introduced called Titanium. These lnbs are of PLL design and have a high price tag when compared to other fta lnbs. False or misleading information about these LNBs is being generated by a few people that are trying to sell or advertise these lnbs. Soon you can expect to see some posts, threads, or advertisements by people using these lnbs stating how well they work. Let's look at few facts and some information from manufacturers to see if we need a PLL type lnb for our FTA systems.
PLL is a common abbreviation for Phased Locked Loop. DRO is a common abbreviation for Dielectric Resonator Oscillator. Most of our FTA lnbs are DRO in design. A PLL lnb will be more stable than a DRO lnb.
Cheap Ku band PLL lnbs have been on the market for quite some time now, and it is typical to see reports by people claiming that these PLL lnb will latch or lock weak transponders better than the DRO lnb that the PLL lnb replaced. I am sure that some of these people are being honest, but it is also obvious that some posts and articles are nothing more than bleeding heart sales pitches designed to get you to spend money for the latest and best lnb technology.
If PLL lnbs are so great, why arent all lnbs PLL in design? Would not Dish Network and DirecTV use PLL lnbs in their systems if they were better at catching signals? PLL lnbs have been in production for well over a decade so the technology is not new.
One thing new is people trying to convince other people to replace their FTA DRO LNB for a PLL lnb with claims of better performance and more received channels. Swedish Microwave and Norsat have been manufacturing PLL lnbs for a long time. The main target market for their PLL lnbs seems to be commercial data customers. A stable lnb is much better on a weak and narrow signal. By narrow signal, I mean a transponder that is less than or around 1 mega symbol (1000SR). How many transponders do we have that are this small? You probably will not to see much difference between a PLL and DRO lnb on a transponder with a SR of 1000 IF the signal being received is wide band such as a a tv picture.
I think the bottom line is there is not much of a practical use for a PLL type lnb in the FTA market. The only real reason a FTA PLL lnb exists for FTA television is to separate you from your money. The majority of people that purchase and install a PLL lnb will not realize any noticeable difference in the received signal from the satellite. They may see an increase in the Q signal or some other FTA level but in the real world, the received signal from the satellite will stay about the same. Any increases in received satellite signal strength will be very small.
Attached are some.pdf files that have been gathered from various sources. I suggest that you read them and do research before you go out and buy an Expensive Titanium or other PLL lnb.
I also wish the new Titanium lnb company the best of luck, but I would prefer that they dazzle us with brilliance and realistic prices rather than baffle us with BS and high prices! EB
Quote taken from SES-Triple-Feed-White-Paper-Ver-1-0:
PLL LNB VS DRO LNB COMPARISON
An interesting finding of the study is that for this specific application DRO-based LNBs performed better, in the aggregate, than PLL-based LNBs. It is well known that PLL LNBs are more stable than DRO LNBs since they utilize a more stable internal reference source (crystal oscillators) or they make use of an input from a stable external source. It follows that for low bit rate applications and/or small carriers (e.g., 50 kHz wide) PLL LNBs typically provide better performance. However, SES testing suggests that DRO LNBs provide acceptable performance for signals with large bit rate carriers (such as DVB-S2 video signals) and in some cases actually outperform PLL LNBs
There is a line of lnbs that have recently been introduced called Titanium. These lnbs are of PLL design and have a high price tag when compared to other fta lnbs. False or misleading information about these LNBs is being generated by a few people that are trying to sell or advertise these lnbs. Soon you can expect to see some posts, threads, or advertisements by people using these lnbs stating how well they work. Let's look at few facts and some information from manufacturers to see if we need a PLL type lnb for our FTA systems.
PLL is a common abbreviation for Phased Locked Loop. DRO is a common abbreviation for Dielectric Resonator Oscillator. Most of our FTA lnbs are DRO in design. A PLL lnb will be more stable than a DRO lnb.
Cheap Ku band PLL lnbs have been on the market for quite some time now, and it is typical to see reports by people claiming that these PLL lnb will latch or lock weak transponders better than the DRO lnb that the PLL lnb replaced. I am sure that some of these people are being honest, but it is also obvious that some posts and articles are nothing more than bleeding heart sales pitches designed to get you to spend money for the latest and best lnb technology.
If PLL lnbs are so great, why arent all lnbs PLL in design? Would not Dish Network and DirecTV use PLL lnbs in their systems if they were better at catching signals? PLL lnbs have been in production for well over a decade so the technology is not new.
One thing new is people trying to convince other people to replace their FTA DRO LNB for a PLL lnb with claims of better performance and more received channels. Swedish Microwave and Norsat have been manufacturing PLL lnbs for a long time. The main target market for their PLL lnbs seems to be commercial data customers. A stable lnb is much better on a weak and narrow signal. By narrow signal, I mean a transponder that is less than or around 1 mega symbol (1000SR). How many transponders do we have that are this small? You probably will not to see much difference between a PLL and DRO lnb on a transponder with a SR of 1000 IF the signal being received is wide band such as a a tv picture.
I think the bottom line is there is not much of a practical use for a PLL type lnb in the FTA market. The only real reason a FTA PLL lnb exists for FTA television is to separate you from your money. The majority of people that purchase and install a PLL lnb will not realize any noticeable difference in the received signal from the satellite. They may see an increase in the Q signal or some other FTA level but in the real world, the received signal from the satellite will stay about the same. Any increases in received satellite signal strength will be very small.
Attached are some.pdf files that have been gathered from various sources. I suggest that you read them and do research before you go out and buy an Expensive Titanium or other PLL lnb.
I also wish the new Titanium lnb company the best of luck, but I would prefer that they dazzle us with brilliance and realistic prices rather than baffle us with BS and high prices! EB
Quote taken from SES-Triple-Feed-White-Paper-Ver-1-0:
PLL LNB VS DRO LNB COMPARISON
An interesting finding of the study is that for this specific application DRO-based LNBs performed better, in the aggregate, than PLL-based LNBs. It is well known that PLL LNBs are more stable than DRO LNBs since they utilize a more stable internal reference source (crystal oscillators) or they make use of an input from a stable external source. It follows that for low bit rate applications and/or small carriers (e.g., 50 kHz wide) PLL LNBs typically provide better performance. However, SES testing suggests that DRO LNBs provide acceptable performance for signals with large bit rate carriers (such as DVB-S2 video signals) and in some cases actually outperform PLL LNBs