Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mm1352000" data-source="post: 789696" data-attributes="member: 82144">Mmmm, nice setup. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Don't get me wrong - I also use a 9x8 multiswitch that combines terrestrial and satellite. It is just that signal from the weaker of my 3 satellites suffers a little bit. Part of that could be the 8 way splitting, but part of it is also the fact that the signal is getting degraded by being combined and crosstalk interference introduced by the multiswitch. With a &quot;simple&quot; setup (one satellite polarity and a terrestrial aerial) it is comparatively cheaper to run separate cables than if you have 8 satellite feeds to run. Running separates in the &quot;simple&quot; situation can save potential issues and isn't prohibitively expensive or impractical which is why I recommended it.mm</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mm1352000, post: 789696, member: 82144"] Mmmm, nice setup. :) Don't get me wrong - I also use a 9x8 multiswitch that combines terrestrial and satellite. It is just that signal from the weaker of my 3 satellites suffers a little bit. Part of that could be the 8 way splitting, but part of it is also the fact that the signal is getting degraded by being combined and crosstalk interference introduced by the multiswitch. With a "simple" setup (one satellite polarity and a terrestrial aerial) it is comparatively cheaper to run separate cables than if you have 8 satellite feeds to run. Running separates in the "simple" situation can save potential issues and isn't prohibitively expensive or impractical which is why I recommended it. mm [/QUOTE]

Verification