ADSL Nation XTF85 - opinions?

Any opinions on ADSL Nation's XTF-85?

http://www.adslnation.com/products/xtf.php

Thinking of replacing my master socket with this. Current line stats
reported by the Siemens router supplied by Tiscali are

US Trained Rate: 448 kbps
DS Trained Rate: 7552 kbps
Local Line Attenuation: 23.0 dB
Remote Line Attenuation: 13.0 dB
Local SNR Margin: 11.5 dB
Remote SNR Margin: 22.0 dB

I also have a Netgear DG824 router and this achieves a slightly lower
line sync, usually in the region of ~7400kbps.

I'm about 2km from the exchange and the line terminates in an Openreach
NTE5a with no extension wiring.

When I first moved into this house I signed up with Newnet and got an
8128kpbs sync. On moving to Tiscali this fell to 7616 and in the recent
cold weather has fallen to 7552.

Have tried a variety of plug-in microfilters and get best results with
an LEA PMF320P-UK.

Don't plan to get all anal about this but thought it might be worth a
punt on the XTF-85 to see if it's all it is cracked up to be.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "Mike Tomlinson" wrote:
>
> Any opinions on ADSL Nation's XTF-85?
>
> http://www.adslnation.com/products/xtf.php
>
> Thinking of replacing my master socket with this. Current line stats
> reported by the Siemens router supplied by Tiscali are
>
> US Trained Rate: 448 kbps
> DS Trained Rate: 7552 kbps
> Local Line Attenuation: 23.0 dB
> Remote Line Attenuation: 13.0 dB
> Local SNR Margin: 11.5 dB
> Remote SNR Margin: 22.0 dB
>
> I also have a Netgear DG824 router and this achieves a slightly lower
> line sync, usually in the region of ~7400kbps.
>
> I'm about 2km from the exchange and the line terminates in an Openreach
> NTE5a with no extension wiring.
>
> When I first moved into this house I signed up with Newnet and got an
> 8128kpbs sync. On moving to Tiscali this fell to 7616 and in the recent
> cold weather has fallen to 7552.
>
> Have tried a variety of plug-in microfilters and get best results with
> an LEA PMF320P-UK.
>
> Don't plan to get all anal about this but thought it might be worth a
> punt on the XTF-85 to see if it's all it is cracked up to be.

You shouldn't do this. The XTF-85 isn't designed to "replace the master
socket". What you need is a filter that will replace the lower half of
the faceplate, e.g. http://www.adslnation.com/products/xte2005.php.
which AFAIK has the same design of filter in it. This will leave the BT
wiring untouched and provide you with the test socket you have to use in
the event of a problem - you connect your modem/router directly to the
test socket on the NTE5, behind the faceplate.

After running ADSL for many years, I've just had to make extensive use
of the test socket and the ability to "obviously" disconnect all my
house wiring. At least it got me a different pait in a new cable all
the way to the exchange.

The XTF-85 is for use where you need to extend the unfiltered signal
(ADSL + voice) to a location remote from the BT "point of demarcation"
or where you don't have an NTE5-type master.

Looking at your figures, why do you need to change anything? At 2Km
the're probably as good as they can be, assuming you're on the "up to
8Mbps" service.

--
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Weston
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>You shouldn't do this. The XTF-85 isn't designed to "replace the master
>socket". What you need is a filter that will replace the lower half of
>the faceplate, e.g. http://www.adslnation.com/products/xte2005.php.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But my existing master socket (NTE5a) is the
only socket on the line. I accept the XTF-85 won't have components that
are present in the master (the out of service resistor and surge
suppressor I know about, anything else?)

The existing NTE5a is surface mounted in an inconspicuous location. I
may yet mount the XTF-85 next to it and make use of the customer
termination behind the removable faceplate. It'll be a cable run of a
few inches at most.

>which AFAIK has the same design of filter in it. This will leave the BT
>wiring untouched and provide you with the test socket you have to use in
>the event of a problem - you connect your modem/router directly to the
>test socket on the NTE5, behind the faceplate.

It's more connections though. I had planned to put the XTE-85 straight
on the incoming pair, replacing the NTE, to minimise joints. If a line
fault develops I can stick the NTE5a back in a couple of minutes. Don't
much care what BT think.

Is the missing out-of-service resistor realistically likely to cause any
problems?

>Looking at your figures, why do you need to change anything? At 2Km
>the're probably as good as they can be, assuming you're on the "up to
>8Mbps" service.

I am.

Just want to make the most of my speeds really. For 8 quid for what
looks like a very good transistorised filter I thought it might be worth
a go, especially if it gets my BRAS speed bumped from 6.5Mbps to 7.

I'm very surprised the figures ore so good. The drop is a very long
overhead run, about 200m from the pole, a single cable with two pairs -
one for me and one for my neighbour, with the crosstalk that implies.
It's jointed twice using what looks like pretty ancient cable before it
reaches the NTE5a. I don't plan to touch any of that though. The house
is in an old neighbourhood and the BT infrastructure was overhauled in
the mid-eighties.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

"Mike Tomlinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Weston
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>>You shouldn't do this. The XTF-85 isn't designed to "replace the master
>>socket". What you need is a filter that will replace the lower half of
>>the faceplate, e.g. http://www.adslnation.com/products/xte2005.php.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that. But my existing master socket (NTE5a) is the
> only socket on the line. I accept the XTF-85 won't have components that
> are present in the master (the out of service resistor and surge
> suppressor I know about, anything else?)
>
> The existing NTE5a is surface mounted in an inconspicuous location. I
> may yet mount the XTF-85 next to it and make use of the customer
> termination behind the removable faceplate. It'll be a cable run of a
> few inches at most.
>
>>which AFAIK has the same design of filter in it. This will leave the BT
>>wiring untouched and provide you with the test socket you have to use in
>>the event of a problem - you connect your modem/router directly to the
>>test socket on the NTE5, behind the faceplate.
>
> It's more connections though. I had planned to put the XTE-85 straight
> on the incoming pair, replacing the NTE, to minimise joints. If a line
> fault develops I can stick the NTE5a back in a couple of minutes. Don't
> much care what BT think.
>
> Is the missing out-of-service resistor realistically likely to cause any
> problems?
>
>>Looking at your figures, why do you need to change anything? At 2Km
>>the're probably as good as they can be, assuming you're on the "up to
>>8Mbps" service.
>
> I am.
>
> Just want to make the most of my speeds really. For 8 quid for what
> looks like a very good transistorised filter I thought it might be worth
> a go, especially if it gets my BRAS speed bumped from 6.5Mbps to 7.
>
> I'm very surprised the figures ore so good. The drop is a very long
> overhead run, about 200m from the pole, a single cable with two pairs -
> one for me and one for my neighbour, with the crosstalk that implies.
> It's jointed twice using what looks like pretty ancient cable before it
> reaches the NTE5a. I don't plan to touch any of that though. The house
> is in an old neighbourhood and the BT infrastructure was overhauled in
> the mid-eighties.

Your rationale for using the XTF-85 makes even less sense
to me now. What advantage would you gain over using a
faceplate like this?
http://www.clarity.it/telecoms/adsl_faceplate.htm


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:
> "Mike Tomlinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>
>> Is the missing out-of-service resistor realistically likely to cause any
>> problems?

Quite possibly - it may show up the wrong conditions on the automated
line tests which BT Wholesale do overnight (or used to, at any rate), if
you don't have a phone plugged in.

>>
>> Just want to make the most of my speeds really. For 8 quid for what
>> looks like a very good transistorised filter I thought it might be worth
>> a go, especially if it gets my BRAS speed bumped from 6.5Mbps to 7.

There's nothing magical about a "Transistorised" filter. In fact, this
will be rather more fragile than a filter designed round passive
components (resistors, capacitors, inductors). I can't see any
justification for active components (Transistors) in a DSL filter. They
can go non-linear under signal overload and will go pop much more easily
when there's lightning about.

In article <goba8g$go7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham. <(E-Mail Removed)>
writes

>Your rationale for using the XTF-85 makes even less sense
>to me now.

Let's see, shall we? I'll post back with the stats from my router when
I've made the change.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

"Mike Tomlinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <goba8g$go7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham. <(E-Mail Removed)>
> writes
>
>>Your rationale for using the XTF-85 makes even less sense
>>to me now.
>
> Let's see, shall we? I'll post back with the stats from my router when
> I've made the change.

As you have no extension wiring to worry about why not just
unplug the phone for a while and see if your speed increases.

Without a phone the filter is doing nothing, except perhaps acting
as a BT plug to RJ11 adapter.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Mike Tomlinson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <goba8g$go7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham. <(E-Mail Removed)>
>writes
>
>>Your rationale for using the XTF-85 makes even less sense
>>to me now.
>
>Let's see, shall we? I'll post back with the stats from my router when
>I've made the change.

When everyone tells you what you want to do is dumb and tells you what you
ought to do and you ignore them why did you bother asking for opinion in
the first place?

--

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, nospam
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>want to do is dumb

Oh, look. An ad hominem attack from an anonymous poster with nothing
useful to offer.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

"Kráftéé" <Kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Mike Tomlinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)
> | In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, nospam
> | <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
> |
> | >want to do is dumb
> |
> | Oh, look. An ad hominem attack from an anonymous poster with
> | nothing useful to offer.
>
> Unfortunately he is telling the truth, in you situation the ABSL
> Nation faceplate filter IS the way to go, but you've set your mind to
> start playing with the network side of things so don't squeal (to
> much) if it lands you with a £200+ call out charge...

There speaks the truth from the horse's mouth!
Openreach will now raise charges for any report where they can't find an
indisputable fault - and there have been occasions reported here where
they've tried to get away with charging even when a network fault has been
put right (but not recorded correctly)!
Much better to clean up your installation in-house first and then have a go
at your ISP to try and get them to persuade Openreach to tweak your SNR,
which they will probably do if they're a good ISP.
It worked for me.

George