Why no MUX in Ch 28 from Isle Of Wight ?
 

If I'm getting good reception from 23, 26 32 and 33 why not 28 - is the
frequency not active for some reason ?

noone wrote:
If I'm getting good reception from 23, 26 32 and 33 why not 28 - is the
frequency not active for some reason ?

AIUI the Ch28 signal for Mux 2 from Rowridge is restricted in some directions
(because of interference concerns). Until March 04 Mux 2 was on Ch 52.

AIUI the move was made from Ch 52 because the view was taken that
more viewers would benefit from having the ITV/4 mux 'in band'
for group A aerials (the analogue group for Rowridge), than keeping
it on Ch52 and requiring viewers to upgrade their aerials to Wideband.

In short the gross service area for Ch 52 was larger than the current area
for Ch 28.

I'm surprised that the allocation has not been swapped with Mux D.
Normally if there are differences with population coverage between
the muxes, the Beeb get first choice, and ITV/4 second. Although
of course in this case Mux D would disappear for many if swapped.

In message
"Mark Carver" wrote:

noone wrote:
If I'm getting good reception from 23, 26 32 and 33 why not 28 - is the
frequency not active for some reason ?

AIUI the Ch28 signal for Mux 2 from Rowridge is restricted in some directions
(because of interference concerns). Until March 04 Mux 2 was on Ch 52.

AIUI the move was made from Ch 52 because the view was taken that
more viewers would benefit from having the ITV/4 mux 'in band'
for group A aerials (the analogue group for Rowridge), than keeping
it on Ch52 and requiring viewers to upgrade their aerials to Wideband.

In short the gross service area for Ch 52 was larger than the current area
for Ch 28.

Which explains why (after the change) I couldn't get Ch 28 properly on
the cheap wideband aerial I had, whereas Ch52 had been fine.

Even with the Televes Dat45 I've had fitted, I've seen a lot of breakups
on Ch4 / ITV recently (was fine in May - either weather or something has
gone wrong - analogue looks weaker too).

Who do we complain to ?

--
___
|im ---- ARM Powered ----

Reply to message from "Mark Carver" (Fri, 03 Sep
2004 14:38:55) about " Why no MUX in Ch 28 from Isle Of Wight ?":


MC noone wrote:
If I'm getting good reception from 23, 26 32 and 33 why not
28 - is the frequency not active for some reason ?

MC AIUI the Ch28 signal for Mux 2 from Rowridge is restricted in some
MC directions (because of interference concerns). Until March 04 Mux 2
MC was on Ch 52.



Thanks for explanation. ITV use the 'less robust' 64QUAM standard
apparently which is the reason why I can't receive this MUX

Tim Howarth wrote:
In message
"Mark Carver" wrote:

noone wrote:
If I'm getting good reception from 23, 26 32 and 33 why not 28 - is
the frequency not active for some reason ?

AIUI the Ch28 signal for Mux 2 from Rowridge is restricted in some
directions (because of interference concerns). Until March 04 Mux 2
was on Ch 52.

AIUI the move was made from Ch 52 because the view was taken that
more viewers would benefit from having the ITV/4 mux 'in band'
for group A aerials (the analogue group for Rowridge), than keeping
it on Ch52 and requiring viewers to upgrade their aerials to
Wideband.

In short the gross service area for Ch 52 was larger than the
current area for Ch 28.

Which explains why (after the change) I couldn't get Ch 28 properly on
the cheap wideband aerial I had, whereas Ch52 had been fine.

Even with the Televes Dat45 I've had fitted, I've seen a lot of
breakups
on Ch4 / ITV recently (was fine in May - either weather or something
has
gone wrong - analogue looks weaker too).

Who do we complain to ?

Your Aerial Rigger! The problem is probably Stockland Hill which also
uses Ch28 from - err - Stockland Hill! The trick would be to adjust the
pointing direction of the aerial so that SH falls into one of the minima
on
the back of the DAT45's beam's polar response.


--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.

In message
"Graham W" wrote:

Tim Howarth wrote:

Even with the Televes Dat45 I've had fitted, I've seen a lot of
breakups on Ch4 / ITV recently (was fine in May - either weather or
something has gone wrong - analogue looks weaker too).

Who do we complain to ?

Your Aerial Rigger!

He spent nearly 3 hours aligning/positioning/cabling etc., I believe he
was doing it properly - unlike the cowboy national chain who fitted the
previous attempt.

If the poor reception is due to weakened Ch28 then it might not be
solvable here (Verwood does seem to be a little tricky - I've spotted a
couple of DAT 75s locally since getting the 45 - wonder if they are
necessary?).

The problem is probably Stockland Hill which also uses Ch28 from - err
- Stockland Hill!

Near Honiton ?

The trick would be to adjust the pointing direction of the aerial so
that SH falls into one of the minima on the back of the DAT45's beam's
polar response.

I need to check that the bleeping squirrels haven't gnawed the cable (do
they ?) and nothing else awry, (like unpowered amp in loft)

But will then try the rigger, local, errm, village based, you might know
(of) him.


--
___
|im ---- ARM Powered ----

Tim Howarth wrote:
In message
"Graham W" wrote:

Tim Howarth wrote:

Even with the Televes Dat45 I've had fitted, I've seen a lot of
breakups on Ch4 / ITV recently (was fine in May - either weather or
something has gone wrong - analogue looks weaker too).

Who do we complain to ?

Your Aerial Rigger!

He spent nearly 3 hours aligning/positioning/cabling etc., I believe
he was doing it properly - unlike the cowboy national chain who
fitted the previous attempt.

If the poor reception is due to weakened Ch28 then it might not be
solvable here (Verwood does seem to be a little tricky - I've spotted
a couple of DAT 75s locally since getting the 45 - wonder if they are
necessary?).

The problem is probably Stockland Hill which also uses Ch28 from -
err - Stockland Hill!

Near Honiton ?

That's the one!

The trick would be to adjust the pointing direction of the aerial so
that SH falls into one of the minima on the back of the DAT45's
beam's polar response.

I need to check that the bleeping squirrels haven't gnawed the cable
(do they ?)

Not usually - didn't you get new cable when they did the aerial?

and nothing else awry, (like unpowered amp in loft)

Both this and the squirrels factor would cause a signal loss
across all channels.

But will then try the rigger, local, errm, village based, you might
know (of) him.

No? Do you think I should? Am I being dim, Tim? Don't answer
that!

Is the position of the mast such that you can't slightly slacken the
mast's U-bolts and swing the aerial a few degrees at a time to
see what the signals on Ch28 are doing?

On my Maxview 16 ele Wideband in the loft and Panny CT20,
I get 9.5 / 10 on all muxes 'cept for Ch28 which is 9.0 / 10 for
Signal Quality.

Do you want to borrow it to see if your loft is radio/TV active?
It's a cheap way out if it cracks it for you.


--
Graham W http://www.gcw.org.uk/ PGM-FI page updated, Graphics Tutorial
WIMBORNE http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/ Wessex
Dorset UK Astro Society's Web pages, Info, Meeting Dates, Sites & Maps
Change 'news' to 'sewn' in my Reply address to avoid my spam filter.