Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Complete Control by URC Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Topic:
RF Interference Between Base Station and RFX Units?
This thread has 12 replies. Displaying all posts.
Post 1 made on Monday November 6, 2006 at 00:58
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
I'm posting this from a previous thread to address what I believe to be a an issue with the RF base stations provided by URC. The issue seems to be that URC is providing a solution to the RF interference but is missing part of that solution. Providing an RFX extender which moves the RF receiver away from the RF interference doesn't address the problem if the cable that connects the two togeather is subject to RF interference itself. Moving the box doesn't negate the problem unless the teather (the cable) to the box shields the interference that you are trying to eliminate.

If the purpose of having the RFX-250 is to move the receiving end of the RF signals away from interference then why wouldn't URC provide cables that were shielded to prevent interfrerence from poluting the cables in the first place?

The RFX-250 is worthless if the cables that connect it to the base station are prone to the same interference that your trying to get away from. I've experienced this same problem with my MX-350. I move the RFX-250 but I still get interference UNTIL I move the cable that is teathered to the MX-350 away from the offending interference.

Why doesn't URC provide shielded cableing with their base stations to begin with? Obviously they are aware of the fact that the supplied cables will likely introduce the same interference that their product is suppose to allow you to move away from.

I personally had to use the extra long cable with the 3.5mm connector on one end and the tinned ends on the other just to get enough cable length to allow me to move the cable out of reach of any RF interference.

It seems to defeat the whole purpose of having the RFX-250 all togeather without having shielded cableing as a part of the package. I guess I need to make my own cable using CAT 5/6 cable to resolve the issue.

Am I missing something? Does basic common sense elude me? I can create my own cables and I will do so just to test my theory. But I think that most of us know that introducing a shielded cable will in fact solve the problem. So why isn't it included with the URC base stations?
Post 2 made on Monday November 6, 2006 at 22:46
tweeterguy
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2005
7,713
Why not just bust out some UTP or S/UTP from the get-go and use that from the rfx to the phoenix connector on the base station? I have yet to have interference induced onto the cat5 via my wiring technique (that I am aware of or that affects performance) and have dozens and dozens of mx/mrf combo's working in various environments.
Post 3 made on Monday November 6, 2006 at 22:57
oex
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2004
4,177
mitch

i would mount the base a reasonable distance from rf producing units and then run the emitters to the devices. I have found RF interference being injected via the cable from the base to the antenna and long emitter wires with the extra stuffed under the compnent. Try to keep any excess away from troublesome components like DVD players and cable boxes.
Diplomacy is the art of saying hire a pro without actually saying hire a pro
OP | Post 4 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 02:29
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
I've solved the interference problem. Tweeterguy hit the nail on the head. Why not use UTP from the get go! Why doesn't URC provide it as part of the package? CAT 5/5e/6 is cheap. Real cheap!

There's already been discussion on this issue in the past and the consensus seems to be UTP to sovle the interference. URC even recommends a specific wiring scheme for connecting CAT 5 cable to the RFX-250s.

I just think it should be part of the package. I'm just whinning. I've solved my problem but I think it would make other installer's problems less likely if they included the cableing with the units.
Post 5 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 07:19
RobEBurke
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
April 2006
102
B&K, Speakercraft, Niles, they all suggest cat5 to wire their keypads/receivers to the controller why don't they supply cat 5 with their equipment?

This is the custom install business. Companies shouldn't have to hold our hand for things like this and supply wire. We have 10,000 feet of cat5 on hand at all times becuase it is the new wire of choice. Besides, I've run RFXs up to 150 feet from the base. Should they supply 200 feet of cat5 with each RFX they sell?
Post 6 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 11:01
JonW747
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2006
621
There's also no guarantee cat5 will work. It's better then running bare wires, but it's not shielded. If the mini jack cable that URC provided didn't work, then they should upgrade that.
Post 7 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 11:39
Eric Johnson
Universal Remote Control Inc.
Joined:
Posts:
May 2001
705
It's pretty unusual for us to get a complaint on the supplied wire. We can certainly improve the wire if it makes a difference on a particular job. If Mitch or any other installer has a site where we can test different wires we would love to hear from you. In our test environments the supplied wire shows no problems.

Best Regards,

-Eric
Best Regards,
Eric
OP | Post 8 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 14:57
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
Apparently most installers don't use the supplied wires which would most likely be why there are very few complaints.

I guess it's no different then any manufacture who provides cableing with their equipment (receivers, processors, HTIB, etc). They usually provide cableing but is it good cable or only adequate cable to maybe get the job done? I think we all know the answer to that question. Would I use it? No.

I would think the same holds true for URC. They provide cableing but most installers won't use it because they have their own cable which is of much better quality.

It would be interesting to be able to setup a test environment with lots of RF interference to see how different cables perform in that environment.
Post 9 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 20:23
Ericjb
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2004
655
Mitch, according to your first post it sounds like you already have a test environment with lots of RF interference. Maybe you could make up a shielded cable and run it along with the cable provided by URC. Without moving the cables much, maybe you could simply unplug one cable and plug in the other and let us know what results .

I've had excellent success with the supplied cables but if/when I run into this issue I already have a nice shielded cable made up that I will be trying out.

If you can try other cables in the above environment, please let us know. I, for one, am interested in what would happen.
There are 10 types of people in this world,
There are those who understand binary,
and those who don't!
OP | Post 10 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 21:05
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
Since I've been able to remove the cable from the interference I would have to move the new cable to a location where the interference is present. So I would first have to move things around to pick up the interference again and then try it with the new cables. I'm willing to do this when I get some time.

Ericjb, when you say you have a shielded cable made up what cable are you using? While CAT5 UTP cable seems to be the preferred choice for many of you it is, in reality, not shielded cable. All though it does have inherrent properties that help it minimize EMI/RFI interference. Are you using STP cable?
Post 11 made on Tuesday November 7, 2006 at 21:15
Ericjb
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
February 2004
655
I have a 2 pair shielded wire with 3.5mm stereo plugs.

You could also probably use S/UTP (Shielded Cat5) but I would still make sure you follow Eric Johnson's suggestion of using all striped wires for ground, then 2 remaining wires for Data and the last 2 wires for +Voltage.
There are 10 types of people in this world,
There are those who understand binary,
and those who don't!
OP | Post 12 made on Wednesday November 8, 2006 at 00:02
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
Absolutely. I intend to use Eric Johnson's suggestion on the wiring pattern. I don't have ready access to any shielded CAT5 but I do for unshielded CAT5 and CAT5e. I'll try the CAT5e first when I get some time.
OP | Post 13 made on Sunday November 12, 2006 at 15:00
Mitch57
Active Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2003
722
I made a cable last night using UTP CAT5e to test for differences in cable interference. There is no difference as far as I could tell between the CAT5e cable and the cable provided by URC. In both cases I got the same interference regardless which cable I used.

I will try testing again with STP CAT5/5e/6 when I can get my hands on some cable. I have tons of UTP at work but no STP. I don't know when I will get around to making another cable but I will post my findings here after my next round of tests.


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse