The selling point of this LNBF states "outperforms all other C-Band LNBFs". Well, that sounds, good, doesn't it? The comparison results published by Titanimu (here: http://titaniumsatellite.com/images/products/TI_C1PLL_%20MicroBUD_Compar...) also look quite honest so this was a no-brainer. The LNB is cheap and should "outperform all other C-Band LNBFs".
Sadly, this is not true. The manufacturer's statement could be based on real tests and honest reception reports but there's one catch. All the tests were conducted on linearly polarized channels! I must say I didn't notice this before. However, since the "outperforms all other C-Band LNBFs" statement does not add "if used for linear polarization", one could argue about the accuracy of such bold conclusion.
Unfortunately, because of my limited field of view, I could not test any linear signals with the new LNB. This is not surprising as the vast majority of signals covering Europe is circular. I've tested three different satellites with the supplied dielectric plate and my 180 cm PF dish:
1) 1°W Intelsat 10-02 (4175 R - AFN)
2) 22°W SES4 (4115 L - AFN)
3) 20°E Arabsat 5C (4054 L - AlJazeera)
Although all the signals were lockable, the Titanium Satellite C1WPLL showed less C/N with higher BER than an old Golden Interstar 17°K LNBF. The difference was actually quite big, considering AFN's weak signal at 1°W. While the Golden Interstar pulls in 6.6 dB, I could not achieve better results with the C1WPLL. Actually, I never got more than 5.5 dB! That's on the edge and some receivers with less sensitive tuners (DM500HD) won't be able to produce block-free picure.
The differences in C1WPLL vs. Golden Interstar performance were not so much noticable at 22°W and 20°E but even here, the Golden Interstar wins with 0.7 - 1 additional dB, managing to receive 22°W with 12 dB and 20°E with 11 dB. C1WPLL signal drops closer to 10 and 11 dB respectively.
My tests have shown a serious gap between the two LNBFs, with Golden Interstar coming out as the clear winner. It's difficult to say what leads to such serios gap in GI's favor. It could be that PLL is less suitable for circular signals.
One thing which is actually great about the C1WPLL is the scalar ring which comes with three screw holes for securing the LNBF in place. Some, including Golden Interstar, come with just one hole, which is a nightmare to use.
In conclusion, I can not recommend C1WPLL unless you're planning on receiving liner signals, maybe there this LNBF will actually have some gain. But that's just a maybe.
The following is the official specification table of the C1WPLL:
|Input Frequency Range||3.40 ~ 4.20GHz|
|Output Frequency Range||950 ~ 1750MHz|
|Noise Temperature||15K typical|
|LO Stability (over temp ex offset)||± 50Khz|
|LO Phase Noise @ 1Khz||-72dBc|
|LO Phase Noise @ 10Khz||-81dBc|
|LO Phase Noise @ 100Khz||-90dBc|
|Conversion Gain||65dB typical|
|Gain Variation||±1dB / 27 MHz|
|Crosstalk Isolation||20dB typical|
|Control Signals Ca [V/CR]||11.5 ～ 14.0V|
|Control Signals Cb [ H/CL]||16.0 ～ 20.0V|
|DC Voltage||11 ~ 20Vdc|
|Output VSWR||2.0 : 1|
|Temperature Range||-22 ~ +140°F / -40 ~ +60°C|
|Relative Humidity||0 ～100% condensing|
|Polarization Type (cast ±45° scale)||Linear (w/dielectric for circular)|
|Connection||F-Type / 3GHz / Female|
|Weight||10.1oz / 286g|
|Construction||Precision Cast Aluminum|
|Hardware||Silver Zinc Coated Steel Allen Head (w/tool)|
|Housing / Scalar Finish||Polyurethane Powder (chip resistant)|
|Color||Snow White / Natural Cooling Fin|
|Feedhorn Cover||RF Low-loss (blue color)|
|Dimensions (w/o scalar)||7⅝ (l) x 4⅜ (h) x 2¾ (w) in 185 (l) x 87 (h) x 68 (w) mm|
|Scalar Type *||Flat - Prime Focus, 3 Ring|
|F/D with included Flat Scalar||0.32 ～ .44+ (cast scale)|
|Mount Type with Flat Scalar||Single pole, Tripod or Quad legs|