A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

ADSL Filters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 13th 09, 12:03 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Flyig u 29 +
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default ADSL Filters

Just had an Openreach engineer round. He was testing the downstream speed
at my main socket and reckoned it was low. For some reason he asked if he
could use my filter and replaced his bog standard BT one with it. Up the
synch rate went by almost 800 kbps, so they are important bits of kit
aren't they? I wonder if his BT one was faulty or is that speed difference
indicative of the difference in filter quality. Mine are supposed to be 5
star rated.
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard are sweeter
FN 29 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland


  #2  
Old August 13th 09, 03:09 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Ato_Zee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 343
Default ADSL Filters


Just had an Openreach engineer round. He was testing the downstream speed
at my main socket and reckoned it was low. For some reason he asked if he
could use my filter and replaced his bog standard BT one with it. Up the
synch rate went by almost 800 kbps, so they are important bits of kit
aren't they? I wonder if his BT one was faulty or is that speed
difference
indicative of the difference in filter quality. Mine are supposed to be 5
star rated.


Disconnecting (breaking the link) either by unplugging or power
off/on can result in reconnecting at a different synch speed. A
difference of 800 kbps relative to what?
Unplugging, and reconnecting again, might have got you back to
where you were before.
There is a spec for filters SIN346
http://www1.btwebworld.com/sinet/346v2p7.pdf
and the filters you buy should comply, including
CE (Chinese Export) ones.
I have found you can chain two or more, but there is
no advantage in more than two, PROVIDED you
plug your modem into the first, and phones into
the last in the chain.
Such multi-stage filtering does not affect voice
quality, or operation of CLSID units, mine still
announces who the caller is, and displays name
and number.
So worth trying two cheap filters before forking out
for a reputed better performing one, which may
turn out to be Snake Oil advertising blurb.
Modem/routers do differ in performance
and synch speed, in some cases by much
more than your quoted 800 kbps.
..
  #3  
Old August 13th 09, 03:19 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Flyig u 29 + on netbook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default ADSL Filters

Ato_Zee wrote:
Just had an Openreach engineer round. He was testing the downstream
speed at my main socket and reckoned it was low. For some reason he
asked if he could use my filter and replaced his bog standard BT one
with it. Up the synch rate went by almost 800 kbps, so they are
important bits of kit aren't they? I wonder if his BT one was faulty or
is that speed difference
indicative of the difference in filter quality. Mine are supposed to be
5 star rated.


Disconnecting (breaking the link) either by unplugging or power
off/on can result in reconnecting at a different synch speed. A
difference of 800 kbps relative to what?
Unplugging, and reconnecting again, might have got you back to
where you were before.
There is a spec for filters SIN346
http://www1.btwebworld.com/sinet/346v2p7.pdf
and the filters you buy should comply, including
CE (Chinese Export) ones.
I have found you can chain two or more, but there is
no advantage in more than two, PROVIDED you
plug your modem into the first, and phones into
the last in the chain.
Such multi-stage filtering does not affect voice
quality, or operation of CLSID units, mine still
announces who the caller is, and displays name
and number.
So worth trying two cheap filters before forking out
for a reputed better performing one, which may
turn out to be Snake Oil advertising blurb.
Modem/routers do differ in performance
and synch speed, in some cases by much
more than your quoted 800 kbps.
.

We are talking about a broadband engineer plugging his standard test
equipment into the test socket using his dsl filter. With his filter he was
reading around 6100 kbps. Replacing his filter with the one I used he read
6848 kbps. As he couldn't believe the reading he put his filter back in and
checked again to get the lower reading once more. Coincidentally, my
router a 10 metre extension lead away subsequently is now synching at 6848
kbps.


--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard are sweeter
FN 29 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland


  #4  
Old August 13th 09, 05:09 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Pete Zahut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default ADSL Filters

Ato_Zee wrote:
Just had an Openreach engineer round. He was testing the downstream
speed at my main socket and reckoned it was low. For some reason he
asked if he could use my filter and replaced his bog standard BT one
with it. Up the synch rate went by almost 800 kbps, so they are
important bits of kit aren't they? I wonder if his BT one was
faulty or is that speed difference
indicative of the difference in filter quality. Mine are supposed
to be 5 star rated.


Disconnecting (breaking the link) either by unplugging or power
off/on can result in reconnecting at a different synch speed. A
difference of 800 kbps relative to what?
Unplugging, and reconnecting again, might have got you back to
where you were before.
There is a spec for filters SIN346
http://www1.btwebworld.com/sinet/346v2p7.pdf
and the filters you buy should comply, including
CE (Chinese Export) ones.


If you mean something with the CE mark, it definitely does _not_ mean
Chinese Export:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sect...page11646.html

I have found you can chain two or more, but there is
no advantage in more than two, PROVIDED you
plug your modem into the first, and phones into
the last in the chain.
Such multi-stage filtering does not affect voice
quality, or operation of CLSID units, mine still
announces who the caller is, and displays name
and number.
So worth trying two cheap filters before forking out
for a reputed better performing one, which may
turn out to be Snake Oil advertising blurb.
Modem/routers do differ in performance
and synch speed, in some cases by much
more than your quoted 800 kbps.
.



  #5  
Old August 13th 09, 05:23 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Roger Mills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 368
Default ADSL Filters

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Flyig u 29 + on netbook wrote:

.

We are talking about a broadband engineer plugging his standard test
equipment into the test socket using his dsl filter. With his filter
he was reading around 6100 kbps. Replacing his filter with the one I
used he read 6848 kbps. As he couldn't believe the reading he put
his filter back in and checked again to get the lower reading once
more. Coincidentally, my router a 10 metre extension lead away
subsequently is now synching at 6848 kbps.


Did he measure it without *any* filter? When using the test socket there's
no need for a filter since all the analog wiring is disconnected anyway -
unless you plug the faceplate into the filter's phone socket - but why would
you do *that*?

If just using the filter as a BT to RJ11 adapter, the digital connection
should be straight through and the filter shouldn't actually do anything -
so it's difficult to see why one should be any different from another.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!


  #6  
Old August 13th 09, 07:20 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Flyig u 29 + on netbook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default ADSL Filters

Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Flyig u 29 + on netbook wrote:

.

We are talking about a broadband engineer plugging his standard test
equipment into the test socket using his dsl filter. With his filter
he was reading around 6100 kbps. Replacing his filter with the one I
used he read 6848 kbps. As he couldn't believe the reading he put
his filter back in and checked again to get the lower reading once
more. Coincidentally, my router a 10 metre extension lead away
subsequently is now synching at 6848 kbps.


Did he measure it without *any* filter? When using the test socket there's
no need for a filter since all the analog wiring is disconnected anyway -
unless you plug the faceplate into the filter's phone socket - but why
would you do *that*?

If just using the filter as a BT to RJ11 adapter, the digital connection
should be straight through and the filter shouldn't actually do anything -
so it's difficult to see why one should be any different from another.


It looked like he was doing the latter to me.
--
Heard melodies are sweet, but those Unheard are sweeter
FN 29 +, Mungo Brandybuck of Buckland


  #7  
Old August 13th 09, 09:00 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,472
Default ADSL Filters

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:09:12 UTC, "Pete Zahut" [email protected] wrote:

If you mean something with the CE mark, it definitely does _not_ mean
Chinese Export:


W hooosh!

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
  #8  
Old August 13th 09, 10:06 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Pete Zahut
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default ADSL Filters

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:09:12 UTC, "Pete Zahut" [email protected] wrote:

If you mean something with the CE mark, it definitely does _not_ mean
Chinese Export:


W hooosh!


??????


  #9  
Old August 13th 09, 10:42 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Bob Eager
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,472
Default ADSL Filters

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:06:27 UTC, "Pete Zahut" [email protected] wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:09:12 UTC, "Pete Zahut" [email protected] wrote:

If you mean something with the CE mark, it definitely does _not_ mean
Chinese Export:


W hooosh!


??????


The sound of the joke passing over your head! :-)

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
  #10  
Old August 13th 09, 11:29 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Peter Crosland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default ADSL Filters

"Roger Mills" wrote in message
...
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Flyig u 29 + on netbook wrote:

.

We are talking about a broadband engineer plugging his standard test
equipment into the test socket using his dsl filter. With his filter
he was reading around 6100 kbps. Replacing his filter with the one I
used he read 6848 kbps. As he couldn't believe the reading he put
his filter back in and checked again to get the lower reading once
more. Coincidentally, my router a 10 metre extension lead away
subsequently is now synching at 6848 kbps.


Did he measure it without *any* filter? When using the test socket there's
no need for a filter since all the analog wiring is disconnected anyway -
unless you plug the faceplate into the filter's phone socket - but why
would you do *that*?

If just using the filter as a BT to RJ11 adapter, the digital connection
should be straight through and the filter shouldn't actually do anything -
so it's difficult to see why one should be any different from another.



Without getting too technical adding any form of filter network to a phone
line will alter the characteristics of the line. This effect may be anything
from very small to very large. This topic has been discussed at length in
the past and lots of disparate views were expressed many of them
nonsensical. The real difficulty with trying to establish the quality of
ADSL filters using just a modem is that the line's characteristics are
changing all the time and in particular are affected by the BT profiling
system. Hence any results using this method can b e very misleading. This
link tells you quite a lot about ADSL filters

http://www.adslnation.com/support/filters.php

Whilst this tells you more about filter theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter

Peter Crosland


 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ADSL Filters Tim S. uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 July 16th 05 05:36 PM
Best ADSL filters. Dave uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 11 April 12th 05 02:17 PM
ADSL Filters Vivian Dunn uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 October 5th 04 11:16 PM
ADSL filters? noman uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 5 September 2nd 04 02:02 AM
Can I connect ADSL filters *before* ADSL connection? Peter X uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 3 May 8th 04 11:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.