Is bigger better, or even necessary?

[just john]

Satellite query; what is the benefit of different size satellite? I have a Mini-dish in South UK which is fine;
but on Charente Dordogneshire border I'm being advised to fit 80cm?,

[brianagain]

It all depends on which satellite you want to receive transmissions from.

Check the footprint on the Lyngsat website for the size of dish required for the desired satellite. (28.2E/2D (for Sky?) or 19.2E or 13.0E?)

http://www.lyngsat-maps.com/europe.html

Brian (again)

[Albert the InfoGipsy]

Essentially, each satellite is aimed at a particular area on the Earth's surface, where a small dish will usually suffice. Outside that area the signal strength drops off until it's totally useless. In the boundary area a larger dish can 'gather' more signal to offset the reduced strength.

As Brian says, you'll need to look at the map to see what size you are likely to need.

[Pierre ZFP]

Its just as said above.  A mini dish might work for you in ideal conditions but is very likely to loose a lot of signal quality (and hence picture) if its raining or even thick cloud.  Lots of cheap dishes on ebay so you might as well go for a bigger one.

[Martin963]

....   and also the degree of protection you desire against "rain fade".   

As has been said,   the signals drop off as you venture further from the centre of the "beam" of the transmission.    The satellite carrying BBC/ITV/ch 4 (but not most of Sky) is more tightly focused on Britain than some other "pan European" transmissions,    so for reception of these channels the dish size that is needed starts to go up much faster as you progress south compared to many other satellites aimed at Europe.

A mini dish would probably do you most of the time where you are,   but for the sake of a few extra £ or € an 80 cm will prove more reliable in adverse weather.

To compare,  in southern Spain to get the BBC you need a dish between 150 and 200 cms (and even then it can be hit and miss) whereas a lot of Sky is still roaring in on dishes much smaller.

(It's a deliberate policy by the BBC and others and saves them having to pay European transmission rights or being scrambled,   the whole thing dates back nearly ten years now).

(edit - crossed with Pierre)

[Anton Redman]

We are just North off Libourne and although a minidish will work here we opted for 80cms.

Slightly harder to align

Significantly better signal quality

Holds on to the signal in very heavy rain etc much longer

Copes with marginal channels like Vintage TV and Classic FM better.

Replacement LNBs off the shelf at local Hypermarket rather than mail order from UK

[just john]

many thanks for replies, I hate the look of the bigger sat's and was hoping to avoid it if possible, but I guess not.

 

[Anton Redman]

If you are really worried about aesthetics

Try a small dish and see if it works for the channels you watch with it optimised for those channels.

Look at a larger dish but mounted lower and descretely

Spend serious money on

D2256 ARCON "MULTI" SATELLITE DISH

[just john]

Ohhh! seems a lot just for a smaller dish, is it better on reception etc? satcure Arcon dish system £149.99 

[Anton Redman]

If I had a house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright whose appearance was going to be wrecked by a large dish I would spend the money.

If because of other buildings etc blocking the path so satellites I would pay the money

Otherwise I would install a larger dish

Broadly it gets you 80cms performance from a smaller dish at a higher cost

[just john]

Apparently Frank is no longer available for consultations[:D]  so I guess it's the larger dish.

Thanks again .

[Anton Redman]

If you want to come round and compare a small dish you are welcome

[Pickles]

When it comes to satellite dishes - as in other fields, apparently - THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR SIZE!

Regards

Pickles

[Théière]

Go for an 80cm clear dish.....