Sadoun is in the process of getting these scalar rings in too.
They have removed the Conical Scalar ring information from most of their pages
offset scaler ring
- Thread starter brotherhood
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 8K
- Status
They have removed the Conical Scalar ring information from most of their pages
That was a joke.
Nobody ever ordered any.
I got the same B/S from another major dealer.
Just no profit in 'em.
See my rant above in post #18
Looks like only Brotherhood has done anything to help out.
Talk to him if you want one.
Nobody ever ordered any.
I got the same B/S from another major dealer.
Just no profit in 'em.
See my rant above in post #18
Looks like only Brotherhood has done anything to help out.
Talk to him if you want one.
No, A Conical scaler ring should reduce the signal on a standard BUD.
One of the main reasons for a conical scaler ring is there to convert a prime focus C-Band LNB to see an oval offset dish instead of a circular dish. (There are more reasons)
I have concluded in my experiments in the past week on my 6' offset Prodelin dish, the scalar doesn't make much difference for me. I tried with and without the scalar and about every LNBF I have in many configurations. I have been testing on AMC18 which is a rather strong satellite on mainly clear sunny days.I get 85-86S and Q. But as with C band, the weather probably doesn't matter that much.
I found on the AMC18 analog test pattern TP, I need only hold the LNB in front of the dish to get a good picture.
I found on the AMC18 analog test pattern TP, I need only hold the LNB in front of the dish to get a good picture.
I remember ScottC said it gave him about 20% higher with the Conical Scaler ring, it might help the smaller dishes more than 6+ FT.
I know that C-Band is very forgiving, yesterday I was adjusting the skew on my C-Band LNB and I got about the same quality with the skew at + 45 degrees or - 45 degrees I though with a 1.2 Meter dish there would be no room for error.
I know that C-Band is very forgiving, yesterday I was adjusting the skew on my C-Band LNB and I got about the same quality with the skew at + 45 degrees or - 45 degrees
I though with a 1.2 Meter dish there would be no room for error.
Corrado - but what did you test.?
Flat scalar and no scalar? -
If you didn't have a conical to test against the other two configurations, we're missing a piece of the puzzle.
In theory, the flat and no scalar would give lots of ground noise (possibly equal)
The Conical scalar should cut that out, giving your a better Quality (especially on weaker birds).
...and I'm looking forward to more test info on that dish... I am looking for one, too.
Qwert1515 - plus or minus 45º is like swapping V for H -
Remember, turning an LNB 180º is the same as not turning it at all
Rotating it 90º swaps the polarity, and that's apparently what you said...?
Flat scalar and no scalar? -
If you didn't have a conical to test against the other two configurations, we're missing a piece of the puzzle.
In theory, the flat and no scalar would give lots of ground noise (possibly equal)
The Conical scalar should cut that out, giving your a better Quality (especially on weaker birds).
...and I'm looking forward to more test info on that dish... I am looking for one, too.
Qwert1515 - plus or minus 45º is like swapping V for H -
Remember, turning an LNB 180º is the same as not turning it at all
Rotating it 90º swaps the polarity, and that's apparently what you said...?
I've been extremely happy with my conical scaler ring. As Qwert stated, i've seen a huge jump in SQ when I originally installed the dish (compared to a flat ring). I'd say that its helped the most on the weaker TP's. I quite honestly BS 80% of the time on Cband and very rarely use the 120cm for KU (mainly for AMC6 and the occasional Sentanta FTE)
Now that it is spring time, I'll probably tweak it some more and probably concentrate more on the Cband side (remember, i've had to compromise some SQ to get a decent KU signal). Once I fill out the T-90, I don't think that I'll need the KU portion on the 120cm.
Now if I can just get that other T-90 mounted on the roof....
Just to note on Anole's last post: We really need a comparison from a conical and flat ring on a offset dish. I would be really interested in how the results compare on a 6 foot offset (especially to a 6 foot prime focus).
I really don't have the time nor the wife's patients to do a comparison, but if i get the chance.....I will.
Otherwise, if Sadoun has a 6ft offset on hand, I'd be happy to donate the ring for some testing. They'd have the test equipment to properly align.
Also, maybe if might change Jamal's mind in stocking these.
Now that it is spring time, I'll probably tweak it some more and probably concentrate more on the Cband side (remember, i've had to compromise some SQ to get a decent KU signal). Once I fill out the T-90, I don't think that I'll need the KU portion on the 120cm.
Now if I can just get that other T-90 mounted on the roof....
Just to note on Anole's last post: We really need a comparison from a conical and flat ring on a offset dish. I would be really interested in how the results compare on a 6 foot offset (especially to a 6 foot prime focus).
I really don't have the time nor the wife's patients to do a comparison, but if i get the chance.....I will.
Otherwise, if Sadoun has a 6ft offset on hand, I'd be happy to donate the ring for some testing. They'd have the test equipment to properly align.
Also, maybe if might change Jamal's mind in stocking these.
Couple of years ago, we had those tests and discussions.
I'm only going on what I recall, but the conical made a difference.
Just too lazy to search out the quotes, as I'm so burned out on the whole subject.
This should really be a $12 to $20 item , which anyone could get as needed...
I've chided Sadoun, phoned up SatelliteAV, posted all sorts of info here, and gotten nowhere.
Time for me to throw in the towel.
hi all
got another 5 rings in so let me no how whats one.
i'm not going to get anymore in becouse the duty charges are killing me and my cousin got called back in the army.
thanks
got another 5 rings in so let me no how whats one.
i'm not going to get anymore in becouse the duty charges are killing me and my cousin got called back in the army.
thanks
I got mine today, don't know when I might get around to testing it? I did walk outside and did a fitting on the DMSI BSC621 and it's going to be a very tight fit. Probably have to do some modification on either the BSC or the Scaler Ring? I have a GeoSat Pro C/K1 still in the box and it's loose around it, so it shouldn't be as much of a challenge, at least with the fit.
Thanks brotherhood...!! And remember to Thank Your Brother..!!
Thanks brotherhood...!! And remember to Thank Your Brother..!!
Are you sure that it will REDUCE the SIGNAL? Why would anyone want to REDUCE SIGNAL? I would think that the more signal you have the better.
Did you mean reduce the NOISE? I'm just guessing here.
Maybe you mean that conical rings are only for offset dishes and will not work properly on a prime focus.
Thanks for clearing this up for me. I'm trying to get a neighbors unused Primestar dish and I want to experiment with C-Band like Iceberg did. I don't know if he used a conical ring or just the flat ring that the BSC-621 comes with. The main thing I am wanting to test with the Primestar is the NASA mux. According to the Lyngsat maps, a 70cm will pick up that signal in my neck of the woods, 38.7N x 90.11W.
Conical Scaler rings are for offset dishes only. Flat scaler rings are for BUDs (Prime focus dish, where the LNB is in the center of the dish). According to Lyngsat I should be able to get NASA with a 85-115 cm dish, but with my 1.2 Meter dish I can not pick it up.
Iceberg was using a flat scaler ring. Many of us have had fairly good results with flat scaler rings.
Iceberg was using a flat scaler ring. Many of us have had fairly good results with flat scaler rings.
Whereas I can pick up NASA on AMC6 (I am at 41 EIRP though) along with all of the other Cband channels on that sat (46 nasa, 66 on the CWs)
- Status
Similar threads
