Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Telephony Wiring + Equipment => Topic started by: sevenlayermuddle on December 03, 2009, 05:11:29 PM
-
I have a question for our experts, inspired by another current thread that I don't want to hijack...
Since my router is plugged into an extension that isn't used for a phone, can I ...
Q1) remove the BT phone socket and it's trailing filter, and replace them with a directly connected RJ11 faceplate for the router with no filter at all? And...
Q2) am I right in thinking that getting rid of the that filter may, if I'm lucky, make a small but measurable improvement?
As background, the router sits on a high shelf in a built-in cupboard. I had already reasoned that the existing phone wiring, installed in the wall cavities when the house was built, must pass right behind it. So I was able to dig a hole in the plasterboard and splice a new socket into the existing wiring, right next to the router. But there really would never be any sane reason why anybody would ever want a phone in that socket, so replacing it with an RJ11 is a tempting idea.
Anybody with an eye for detail may notice that I'm contradicting myself, since I'd said elsewhere and in other threads that an extra filter seemed, against the odds, to actually improve my line. That used to be consistently the case but, following some detailed wiring improvements the other day which I won't bore you with, it's no longer the case. I now find the fewer filters I have, the better it gets.
-
1. Yes
2. Probably not
-
Hi
quote : I now find the fewer filters I have, the better it gets.
Just to clarify .How are you measuring the improvements ?, what sort of improvements are you seeing?
Do your tests involve rebooting ?
Regards Jeff
-
Just to clarify .How are you measuring the improvements ?, what sort of improvements are you seeing?
Do your tests involve rebooting ?
Hi Jeff,
The improvements were measured by just monitoring the SNRM every second, using the Netgear web interface. Up till a few days ago (my latest wiring mods), plugging in an extra filter consistently gained me about 2dB, and removing it reverted back to where it had been. That corresponds to something around 400kbps, and occasionally I'd reconnect just to 'prove it' (which it always did). I know it bucks the trend, but I tried it on countless occasions, different times of day and different times of year, different weather, and the results were 100% consistent - extra filter = +2dB or 400kbps (my choice).
This past few days, I see an SNR degradation of about 1.5dB when I plug in the extra filter. It's too soon to say if that effect will be consistent over time.
-
sevenlayermuddle said:
Up till a few days ago (my latest wiring mods), plugging in an extra filter consistently gained me about 2dB, and removing it reverted back to where it had been.
This past few days, I see an SNR degradation of about 1.5dB when I plug in the extra filter. It's too soon to say if that effect will be consistent over time.
Question: I take it the extra filter to which you refer was the same one in both instances where the SNR results were different.
I am still messing around with my connection and did stumble perhaps on some small measure of success. I removed the adsl filter where the router was situated and replaced it with one of the other filters in use and the upstream SNRM gained 2db. I guess filter must wear out over time even though they seem to perform without issues.
I too am mulling over the idea of a dedicated RJ11 socket for the router's situ and looking for one that is surface mounted.
Good Luck
-
Question: I take it the extra filter to which you refer was the same one in both instances where the SNR results were different.
Yes, same filter. However I've already noticed the results are no longer consistent, the extra filter wasn't making the slightest difference last night.
My best (half-baked) theory is that every time you add or remove a filter it may modify the frequency response of the line. Perhaps, by some fluke of fortune, when I was 'winning', it was modifying it for me such that it resonated around my best frequency bins. With my modified wiring the effect would be different.
Other than that, I think Eric's made the point over in your own thread, that each filter must load the line to some small extent, which can't help. So disregarding my previous fluke, I reckon minimizing the number of filters has to be the safest approach. By the sound of things though, nobody expects it to make much difference it all, if any. :(
-7LM
-
The ADSL side of a filter goes 'straight through' - i.e. It's the voice that gets filtered.
Adding/removing filters shouldn't cause issues. Double-filtering can also help for SKY boxes etc. using filters from different manufacturers can also help as they may be working on slightly different frequencies.
I would plug directly into the TEST socket and record your results. Then compare other configurations with these and if they aren't as good then you know you can improve things.
The best route to take is to fit an ADSL faceplate filter - I use one from ADSLNation...
Sorry if this is 'sucking eggs'... :)
-
I am thinking of doing dedicated lines when I next decorate.
What I was thinking of doing was have a double filtered face plate at the main NTE and from that run Cat5 cable to each phone outlet that would have both phone and ADSL sockets.
Some pairs from the filtered phone side would go to the phone sockets and other pairs to the ADSL in the same outlets.
Basically running two separate connections down one cat 5 wire.
That would then mean I could have the router anywhere there was a phone outlet and it would not need a filter.
I was then also thinking of networking the house to connect any computer to the ports of the router.
(Not quite worked that part out yet)
-
If I was running Cat5 everywhere I'd put in a proper small patch panel at a suitable central point, feed the incoming phone line there and probably run at least 2 Cat5's to each outlet. Then you don't have to mix signals down a single cable.
-
If I was running Cat5 everywhere I'd put in a proper small patch panel at a suitable central point, feed the incoming phone line there and probably run at least 2 Cat5's to each outlet. Then you don't have to mix signals down a single cable.
Can you recommend any patch panels I could look at.
Could I also do the same with phone connections from a panel?
My phone wiring is in series not parallel.
I believe that is the correct way.
-
I've used some from the screwfix.com range.
I also keep my ADSL and voice in separate wires...
-
Phones don't mind if they're star-wired or in series.
Computer networking (these days) is almost invariably star-wired.
And phones can be used over LAN cable but not conversely.
If your home doesn't suit star-wiring (unlikely TBH) forget a patch panel.
Many newer homes come with structured cabling (as it's known) pre-installed, see if you can have a good look at someones setup. There are an awful lot of options so not easy to describe or recommend.
For example you can have faceplates with separate outlets dedicated to phone and LAN or just have a flexible arrangement with adapters or modular sockets. And many people include audio & video distribution too so the cabling can be quite bulky. We're mostly into professionally designed and installed stuff by now though.
-
Hi Britbrat,
Connectix have a large rage of modular devices e.g.
http://www.cablemonkey.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000002.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ecablemonkey%2eco%2euk%2facatalog%2fCabinets%2ehtml&WD=panel%20patch&PN=UTP4%2ehtml%23a009_2d001_2d001_2d01#a009_2d001_2d001_2d01
or
http://www.lindy.co.uk/networking/patch-panels/
For small wall mounting applications boxes might be more suitable e.g.
http://www.lindy.co.uk/shop/showProductDetail.do;jsessionid=4DCEADDDDBE07BB50A37E58D35531EB7?orderNumber=60579
For slightly larger applications a hinged wall mount box can be a good solution
http://www.network-cabs.co.uk/acatalog/Wall_Brackets.html
Have fun searching the www.
Kind regards,
Walter
-
The best route to take is to fit an ADSL faceplate filter - I use one from ADSLNation...
Sorry if this is 'sucking eggs'... :)
Hmm, are you suggesting the filtered faceplate that normally goes over the NTE5? That may work, you know. I don't want the router near the master (wifi's generally best with the router central within the house), but I could fit the filtered faceplate at the router's extension, thereby effectively isolating at least some of the extension wiring. Don't know if it would need to be modified though, to fit a normal 'flat fronted' patress box?
[/quote]
I am thinking of doing dedicated lines when I next decorate.
What I was thinking of doing was have a double filtered face plate at the main NTE and from that run Cat5 cable to each phone outlet that would have both phone and ADSL sockets.
-@BritBrat, I'd used CAT5E rather than CAT5, just in case you ever decide to use it for ethernet. In theory Cat 5 is OK for gigabit, but 5E is dirt cheap so you may as well use it. I avoided CAT6 as it's overkill and expensive for home us, IMO. I'd also follow B4dger's advice and see what difference there is between your existing extensions and the master socket's test connection. If there's not much difference between the two, then CAT5 won't help.
As for patch panels, I actually made some out of flush-mounting modular outlet boxes, flush mounted onto recessed patress boxes.
-
-@BritBrat, I'd used CAT5E rather than CAT5, just in case you ever decide to use it for ethernet. In theory Cat 5 is OK for gigabit, but 5E is dirt cheap so you may as well use it. I avoided CAT6 as it's overkill and expensive for home us, IMO. I'd also follow B4dger's advice and see what difference there is between your existing extensions and the master socket's test connection. If there's not much difference between the two, then CAT5 won't help.
As for patch panels, I actually made some out of flush-mounting modular outlet boxes, flush mounted onto recessed patress boxes.
I do not have any issues with my current wiring as I wired it up with good cable myself years ago.
Thanks for all the advice very interesting, I am sure from it I can work out a plan for myself now.
I never knew you could wire phones in Star (parallel)
-
I never knew you could wire phones in Star (parallel)
It's not a problem for phones, but I think it can be a theoretical issue for the higher frequency DSL signals. I've never been sure why it's an issue, it may be that every time a DSL signal meets a 'dead end' it will reflect back into the wiring again causing distortion, and star wiring has more dead ends. Maybe somebody else on the forum can explain this if I'm wrong...?
And, of course, if you can isolate the phone wiring from DSL at the master, with an ADSLNation filtered faceplate, then above shouldn't matter.
-
Anything you buy now labelled as Cat5 is likely to be Cat5E anyway or very very old stock.
Cat5 was superceded long ago, though in a domestic envirionment it actually won't matter as Cat5 will run Gigabit ethernet quite happily up to 100 metres!
Cat6 I agree - avoid.
-
Hi
quote 1 :The improvements were measured by just monitoring the SNRM every second, using the Netgear web interface
Trying to get meaningful results with what is in effect spot check on SNR is VERY difficult , unless you have a very quiet line with virtually no "jitter" . Using something like routerstats helps with constant monitoring , even then the graphical presentation has to be interpreted carefully. One great advantage is the SNR "jitter" can be observed prior to any test and the apparent GAINS/ losses can be confirmed or not .
Quote 2: By the sound of things though, nobody expects it to make much difference it all, if any.
Well that should be good news :). As mentioned double filtering reportably works with things ,like Sky boxes *. That in itself brings doubt into the quality of some filters .
* The best thing to do is disconnect the SKY box phone connection if you don't need it .
Regards Jeff
-
quote 1 :The improvements were measured by just monitoring the SNRM every second, using the Netgear web interface
Trying to get meaningful results with what is in effect spot check on SNR is VERY difficult , unless you have a very quiet line with virtually no "jitter" . Using something like routerstats helps with constant monitoring , even then the graphical presentation has to be interpreted carefully. One great advantage is the SNR "jitter" can be observed prior to any test and the apparent GAINS/ losses can be confirmed or not .
I'll elaborate more on how I monitored things for these tests, as it's a trick that may prove useful to anybody else with a hand-held browser (I used an IPod touch).
The Netgear HTML 'status' page has a button that allows refresh rate to be configured, down to one second updates. That allows you to carry it around the house with you, and keep a beady eye on, pretty much in real-time, at the exact moment you change anything. It's also very easy to judge if, or by how much, it's bobbing around of it's own accordsince obviously changes are irrelevant unless they're vastly greater than any such bobbing. Routerstats has many uses, but for that scenario I found the Ipod and the plain old Netgear html interface would be hard to beat. :)
Obviously, you do need to keep an eye on thing (maybe using routerstats ;) ) for a few hours either side, in case any gains or losses evaporate as soon as you turn your back on them.
- 7LM
-
The ADSL side of a filter goes 'straight through' - i.e. It's the voice that gets filtered.
Adding/removing filters shouldn't cause issues. Double-filtering can also help for SKY boxes etc. using filters from different manufacturers can also help as they may be working on slightly different frequencies.
I would plug directly into the TEST socket and record your results. Then compare other configurations with these and if they aren't as good then you know you can improve things.
The best route to take is to fit an ADSL faceplate filter - I use one from ADSLNation...
Sorry if this is 'sucking eggs'... :)
You are of course correct to say that the ADSL connection is straight through, but the filter components are still connected to that line, and can affect its behaviour in unpredictable ways. The extreme case is the ADSLNation active filter, as used in their filtered faceplate and their plug-in filters. Because these have active components they can possibly disrupt each other's working, and I've seen a number of reports of bad results when more than one of these is connected. Passive filters are less problematical, but they still contain reactive components connected across the line, and these can resonate or load the line more at various frequencies. So it's generally good practice to use as few filters as possible.
-
I don't know if this is any help but I noticed you are talking about jitter.
JD's Auto Speedtester (http://forum.adslhelper.co.uk/forum/36-jds-auto-speedtester/) will record it and other things and you could run it alongside routerstats.
-
Hi
quote : I found the Ipod and the plain old Netgear html interface would be hard to beat.
good tip will bear that one in mind :)
Regards Jeff
-
Getting back to the subject of my original post, I'm probably going to try a Solwise filtered faceplate:
http://www.solwise.co.uk/adsl_splitters.htm (halfway down that page).
...unless anybody talks me out of it before I get to the electronic checkout? ???
According to the blurb, it differs from most extension-fitting (standard patress, non NTE5) faceplates that Ive seen, in that wiring to the rest of the extensions can be either filtered or unfiltered. I don't think the ADSLNatiuon equivalent allows the former (subsequent extensions filtered), but maybe somebody will tell me if I'm wrong, or missing other choices?
That will allow me a half-way house, where I can leave the router where it is, slightly compromised by being on an extension, but optimised by getting rid of most of the interference from the rest of the extension wiring. It also allows me to reduce the number of filters in the entire house to exactly one.
Getting back to b4dger's comment:
I would plug directly into the TEST socket and record your results. Then compare other configurations with these and if they aren't as good then you know you can improve things.
The test socket actually shows no obvious improvement, though it's difficult to be conclusive as it takes some time to unplug all the hardware and reconnect, by which time the noise levels may have drifted up or down a bit anyway. That's why I'm loathe to use it, as it means sacrificing many coinvenience factors, such as having the router's wifi in the centre of the house, and keeping flickering lights out of the Study which occasionally doubles up as a spare bedroom. But it still makes sense to optimise the wiring as much as possible, especially as I'm on a rather long line (56dB).
-
According to the blurb, it differs from most extension-fitting (standard patress, non NTE5) faceplates that Ive seen, in that wiring to the rest of the extensions can be either filtered or unfiltered. I don't think the ADSLNatiuon equivalent allows the former (subsequent extensions filtered), but maybe somebody will tell me if I'm wrong, or missing other choices?
Hi, Yes the ADSLNation has both:
"IDC terminals on the rear allow connection of additional filtered and unfiltered hardwired telephone extensions."
http://www.adslnation.com/products/xte2005.php
So behind the faceplate you've got filtered/unfiltered options via IDC and from the front the same again via BT plug and RJ11.
-
Hi, Yes the ADSLNation has both:
"IDC terminals on the rear allow connection of additional filtered and unfiltered hardwired telephone extensions."
http://www.adslnation.com/products/xte2005.php
@B4dger,
I was about to disagree because think your link is for the master faceplate, that will fit over the removable lower section of an NTE-5. What I want is a faceplate that fits over a bog standard flat-faced 85mm patress box. The equivalent at ADSLNation is
http://www.adslnation.com/products/xtf.php
The wording for that differs from the XTE...
'Allows connection of telephone equipment without using separate microfilters. IDC terminals on the rear allow connection of additional hardwired telephone extensions.'
...which I found ambiguous. On closer inspection, however, it adds...
'Ideal for people who would rather not have filters plugged in to the telephone socket or situations where equipment must be hardwired to the line such as alarm systems.'
...which I think removes the ambiguity. So yes, you're right, further extensions would be filtered as I require.
Regardless of that, I'm afraid I already got a bit trigger-happy and ordered the solwise before I saw your post. Maybe I'll put the ADSLNation on my xmas present list and report back on whether I can find any difference in performance between the two :)
-
Would the XTE-2005 (http://www.adslnation.com/downloads/docs/XTE-2005_Guide.pdf) be better?
I think it more fits my needs.
-
Would the XTE-2005 (http://www.adslnation.com/downloads/docs/XTE-2005_Guide.pdf) be better?
That's the same device b4dger suggested. :)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'better', but it's not suitable for my requirements as it's designed for an nte5, which means it's the wrong shape for an 85mm flat-fronted patress box.
I'm not sure whether ADSLNation filters perform 'better' than Solwise. I suspect that would be an emotive question that would get different answers depending on who you ask. My expectation is that both are both pretty adequate, and one may be better on some lines, the other better on other lines.
ADSLNation has 'active' components (transistors), so it would have been interesting to try, though I've never seen a convincing technical explanation as to why it should make much difference.
- 7LM
-
PS: Blow the expense, I've ordered an ADLSNation filter too, else I'd have tormented myself forever woondering whether it would have made any difference.
Annoyingly, the 85mm version doesn't seem to be available, even from ADSLNation, so I've ordered the smaller one and will modify the mounting after I've tried it out, if it proves any better.
-
Given that neither ADSL Nation nor Solwise actually manufacture their products tehemselves, and that the design looks remarkably similar, it is not impossible that both firms are selling an identical but badge-engineered device. I have an ADSL Nation consignment which states the country of origin as China, although it would be possible for different filter components to be enclosed in similar designs.
Kind regards,
Walter
-
it is not impossible that both firms are selling an identical but badge-engineered device.
Hi Walter,
I have mixed feelings about that...
I hope you're wrong, else I'll feel like a fool for buying the ADSLNation when I already had the other on order.
...but..
I hope you're right, as the ADSLNation one that I've ordered is going to take some butchery to make it fit my full size recessed back-box.
???
I'll report back in due course as to whether they have the same electronics and, if not, whether either one performs vastly superior to the other.
-7LM
-
I can't help feeling you have made this more complicated than it needed to be unless I am missing something.
1. You are connecting to a phone outlet through a ADSL filter with no phone connected to the same outlet.
2. You wanted to do away with the filter.
If so remove filter and plug the router/extension cable back into the phone socket, no need for any filter at all.
Only phone devices need a filter when there is an ADSL connection on the same line.
The only thing I can think off is you are doing this in case someone may want to use the phone socket to connect a phone without the use of a filter.
-
What you're missing is: RJ11 plug, BT socket. Doesn't fit. :lol:
-
What you're missing is: RJ11 plug, BT socket. Doesn't fit. :lol:
Ah I see.
OK could have changed the plug to a BT one.
EDIT:
I think I seen one today for sale, now where was that!
Getting back to the subject of my original post, I'm probably going to try a Solwise filtered faceplate:
http://www.solwise.co.uk/adsl_splitters.htm (halfway down that page).
That was it right at bottom of page :)
-
remove filter and plug the router/extension cable back into the phone socket, no need for any filter at all.
@Britbrat,
Yes, that would have worked, if I could arrange for the RJ11 outlets as per HP's comments, but even so it can be improved upon...
...if I just connected the router to the phone wires then the entire house's phone extension wiring would still be acting as an aerial and feeding interference into the signal seen by the router. The solution I'm pursuing improves upon that that, such that the DSL signal is only exposed to interference picked on by the wiring between the master socket and the router. The extension wiring to subsequent remaining sockets (at least another four) will be on the filtered side of the DSL signal, and therefor shouldn't be able to contribute much to interference.
Better still would be to filter the house wiring in its entirety at the master socket using something like the filtered faceplate you linked to earlier. That's the Gold Standard solution, but it requires the router to be plugged in at the master, which I want to avoid. All the same, when you think about it, my solution isn't actually any more complicated, it's just the same think but implemented 'downstream' from the master socket.
To put it all in context, the guy who had my house built installed phone sockets in every room in the house and then some (I can think of at least nine sockets off the top of my head, there may be more if I went around and counted them). It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. I could just disconnect it all but that seems a shame, I'd rather find a way of leaving it in place but minimising it's effects.
edit: added 'at least'
-
Well, the ADSLNation arrived today and is now fitted. I have to say that if it's making any difference then it must be a subtle one, but that's all I expected since the master test socket wasn't a huge improvement either.
I unplugged everything, hacked in the new socket, wired it all up and when I finally reconnected I'd actually lost, rather than gained, a few hundred kbps. Probably, however, my usual 'evening SNR dip' was already well underway by the time I reconnected so it's not a fair comparison. It'll be interesting to see whether the evening dips at their worst are any less prominent than they were, that alone would probably make it worthwhile.
Or maybe things are just as good as I'll ever get them, connecting these days (daytime) at between 3.8Mbps and 4.2Mbps, with a 9dB target and a 56dB line :-\
-
Sure looks that way:
http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/max_speed_calc.php
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sure looks that way:
Yep, and that's based on a 6dB target - mine's 9, which makes it even better. I'll always be greedy for more though :)