|
|
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
We were trying to watch ITV3 last night which we get from Sudbury on
Mux 56, it was very poorly and deteriorated to the point where our Humax gave up completely and just said "No or Bad signal". All the other MUXs were fine with signal strength around 60% and quality 100%. MUX 56 gave signal strength of 56% and quality bouncing around between 0% and 10%. This morning (Sunday) it's fine again with quality back at 100%. Was there something actually wrong at Sudbury or was it some sort of wierd layering/atmospheric condition causing the problem? -- Chris Green |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:20:35 +0000, tinnews wrote:
or was it some sort of wierd layering/atmospheric condition causing the problem? Fine weather (warm days, cold nights) in the autumn usually results in good propagation arising from temperature inversions. So could it have been co-channel interference from RTBF UHF ch56 Wavre 5kW? http://www.tnt62-nord.FR/t63-Photo-Emetteur-de-Wavre-Belgique.htm |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:20:35 +0000, tinnews wrote: or was it some sort of wierd layering/atmospheric condition causing the problem? Fine weather (warm days, cold nights) in the autumn usually results in good propagation arising from temperature inversions. So could it have been co-channel interference from RTBF UHF ch56 Wavre 5kW? http://www.tnt62-nord.FR/t63-Photo-Emetteur-de-Wavre-Belgique.htm That would make some sense, I don't think the frontback ratio on my aerial is particularly good, it's not something that's been important before. -- Chris Green |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
wrote in message ... We were trying to watch ITV3 last night which we get from Sudbury on Mux 56, it was very poorly and deteriorated to the point where our Humax gave up completely and just said "No or Bad signal". All the other MUXs were fine with signal strength around 60% and quality 100%. MUX 56 gave signal strength of 56% and quality bouncing around between 0% and 10%. This morning (Sunday) it's fine again with quality back at 100%. Was there something actually wrong at Sudbury or was it some sort of wierd layering/atmospheric condition causing the problem? -- Chris Green We're 30 miles south of Birmingham, on high ground with a north facing amplified aerial. Every time there's the slightest sniff of a lift, Emley Moor comes crashing in with Sutton Coldfield giving us grainy analogue reception and very unreliable DTTV. Such has been the case over the weekend. Tony Sayer will be here in a minute to remind me that Sky doesn't suffer in the same way. ;-) |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
Doctor D wrote:
We're 30 miles south of Birmingham, on high ground with a north facing amplified aerial. If you've got line-of-sight to Sutton Coldfield - which you seem to be implying - then why an *amplified* aerial? Perhaps removing the amplifier would discourage Emley Moor from breaking in. Tony Sayer will be here in a minute to remind me that Sky doesn't suffer in the same way. ;-) :-) It just has other ways of suffering ... André Coutanche |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
André Coutanche wrote:
Doctor D wrote: We're 30 miles south of Birmingham, on high ground with a north facing amplified aerial. If you've got line-of-sight to Sutton Coldfield - which you seem to be implying - then why an *amplified* aerial? Perhaps removing the amplifier would discourage Emley Moor from breaking in. The absence, or presence of an amplifier does not, and cannot discourage a co-channel source. If Emley is coming in at say 30dB below Sutton C, that differential will always be the same regardless of 'aerial system' gain. A more directional aerial is the only way to counter co-channel sources. I do acknowledge that an amplifier might get pushed into saturation by the extra signal from a co-channel source, which could lead to additional patterning on analogue, or premature break up on DTT. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"André Coutanche" wrote in message et... Doctor D wrote: We're 30 miles south of Birmingham, on high ground with a north facing amplified aerial. If you've got line-of-sight to Sutton Coldfield - which you seem to be implying - then why an *amplified* aerial? Perhaps removing the amplifier would discourage Emley Moor from breaking in. Tony Sayer will be here in a minute to remind me that Sky doesn't suffer in the same way. ;-) :-) It just has other ways of suffering ... André Coutanche I don't have LOS - it's hilly in between, and a 10db amplifier is just perfect for cleaning things up slightly. SC and EM are almost on the same bearing from here, and a more directional aerial may not help. I'm already using an Anti XG10E/W. I don't currently have time to look at the post DSO channel allocations for EM - but if they still clash with SC I'll probably start to use Ridge Hill in three years time. It isn't currently viable for DTTV due to lower signal levels and local geography. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
In article , Doctor D
scribeth thus wrote in message . .. We were trying to watch ITV3 last night which we get from Sudbury on Mux 56, it was very poorly and deteriorated to the point where our Humax gave up completely and just said "No or Bad signal". All the other MUXs were fine with signal strength around 60% and quality 100%. MUX 56 gave signal strength of 56% and quality bouncing around between 0% and 10%. This morning (Sunday) it's fine again with quality back at 100%. Was there something actually wrong at Sudbury or was it some sort of wierd layering/atmospheric condition causing the problem? -- Chris Green We're 30 miles south of Birmingham, on high ground with a north facing amplified aerial. Every time there's the slightest sniff of a lift, Emley Moor comes crashing in with Sutton Coldfield giving us grainy analogue reception and very unreliable DTTV. Such has been the case over the weekend. Tony Sayer will be here in a minute to remind me that Sky doesn't suffer in the same way. ;-) Well if your dish isn't aligned that well a good rainstorm will see it off;!.... -- Tony Sayer |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"André Coutanche" wrote in message et... Doctor D wrote: We're 30 miles south of Birmingham, on high ground with a north facing amplified aerial. If you've got line-of-sight to Sutton Coldfield - which you seem to be implying - then why an *amplified* aerial? Perhaps removing the amplifier would discourage Emley Moor from breaking in. Gain from an amplifier does not affect signal/noise ratio received by the aerial. Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"Doctor D" wrote in message et... I don't have LOS - it's hilly in between, and a 10db amplifier is just perfect for cleaning things up slightly. SC and EM are almost on the same bearing from here, A perfect recipe for CCI. and a more directional aerial may not help. I'm already using an Anti XG10E/W. That's actually one of the least directional aerials on the market. Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:55:17 +0100, Doctor D wrote:
I don't currently have time to look at the post DSO channel allocations for EM - but if they still clash with SC As far as I can tell, for all DVB-t transmitters now in operation, and for most of the relays which will be converted (which will only carry the three PSB multiplexes), the plan is to put the multiplexes on the channels currently used for analog. Remember that for main stations Emley Moor and Sutton Coldfield, the power of the DVB-t transmissions is going to be increased considerably, so it is essential that they will be broadcasting on different channels. According to http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=SK113003 Sutton Coldfield after DSO will transmit on *C29 C42 C43 C45 C46 C49 *C50 *C51 and http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=SE222128 Emley Moor after DSO will transmit on C41 C44 *C45 C47 C48 C51 C52 *C56 where * denotes the tentative proposed multiplexes NEW7 and NEW8 which, of course, may very well never happen. So as you can see post DSO these two main stations will no longer broadcast on the same channels, except for the possible, proposed local low-power multiplexes. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"J G Miller" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:55:17 +0100, Doctor D wrote: I don't currently have time to look at the post DSO channel allocations for EM - but if they still clash with SC As far as I can tell, for all DVB-t transmitters now in operation, and for most of the relays which will be converted (which will only carry the three PSB multiplexes), the plan is to put the multiplexes on the channels currently used for analog. The main channels will be Emley 41 44 47 51 48 52 Sutton 43 46 55 42 45 49 The extra ones, as you list below, sound like a bad idea to me. Remember that for main stations Emley Moor and Sutton Coldfield, the power of the DVB-t transmissions is going to be increased considerably, so it is essential that they will be broadcasting on different channels. Hypothetically, if two transmitters increased their power by the same amount the CCI would get neither worse nor better. Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... "Doctor D" wrote in message et... I don't have LOS - it's hilly in between, and a 10db amplifier is just perfect for cleaning things up slightly. SC and EM are almost on the same bearing from here, A perfect recipe for CCI. and a more directional aerial may not help. I'm already using an Anti XG10E/W. That's actually one of the least directional aerials on the market. Bill Is this another example of marketing over engineering then? According to the Anti website: XG10E/W acceptance angle 16 degrees TCX18EW 19 degrees. Triax Unix 44W 20 degrees The XG10E/W also scores well on F/B ratio in comparison. At least they put figures on their website, I couldn't find any figures for Televes or Blake. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"J G Miller" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:55:17 +0100, Doctor D wrote: I don't currently have time to look at the post DSO channel allocations for EM - but if they still clash with SC As far as I can tell, for all DVB-t transmitters now in operation, and for most of the relays which will be converted (which will only carry the three PSB multiplexes), the plan is to put the multiplexes on the channels currently used for analog. Remember that for main stations Emley Moor and Sutton Coldfield, the power of the DVB-t transmissions is going to be increased considerably, so it is essential that they will be broadcasting on different channels. According to http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=SK113003 Sutton Coldfield after DSO will transmit on *C29 C42 C43 C45 C46 C49 *C50 *C51 and http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=SE222128 Emley Moor after DSO will transmit on C41 C44 *C45 C47 C48 C51 C52 *C56 where * denotes the tentative proposed multiplexes NEW7 and NEW8 which, of course, may very well never happen. So as you can see post DSO these two main stations will no longer broadcast on the same channels, except for the possible, proposed local low-power multiplexes. Thanks. Looks like my installation can stay as it is then. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"Doctor D" wrote in message et... aerial may not help. I'm already using an Anti XG10E/W. That's actually one of the least directional aerials on the market. Bill Is this another example of marketing over engineering then? According to the Anti website: XG10E/W acceptance angle 16 degrees TCX18EW 19 degrees. Triax Unix 44W 20 degrees I tend to think more of the acceptance from the sides and back than from the angles near where the aerial is pointing. Mind you, I had cause to align one of these very short 'high gain' wideband aerials the other day and it seemed so sloppy -- the front lobe was very wide. Felt odd when you're used to a grouped 18 ele. The XG10E/W also scores well on F/B ratio in comparison. I just don't know where these figures come from. I'm certain that a TC18B (or K when you could get them) will be dramatically better in this respect than an XG10W. I have great respect for the big XGs --used hundreds -- but not the little ones. The answer with Sutton, if you can't get a K, is to use a B and reduce the length of some of the directors a little bit. It's all documented in this group somewhere. I'm afraid I just can't take manufacturers' figures seriously. I'm not saying they set out to tell lies, it's just that there's so much room for embelishment. When anything interesting appears on the market I try six or ten and make my own mind up. Sometimes I do direct comparisions. In some instances I have bought ten aerials and thrown six away because they are too bad to use. Less of that nowadays though. I think all the manufacturers are pretty slick at tweaking their designs empirically. Years ago there were some grouped high gain aes on the market that were actually worse than contract 10 eles! The fact is that if you know what you're doing you can get better gain and directivity out of two stacked 18ele grouped aerials than any wideband high gain monster on the market. Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:10:39 +0100, Doctor D wrote:
Every time there's the slightest sniff of a lift, Emley Moor comes crashing in with Sutton Coldfield giving us grainy analogue reception and very unreliable DTTV. Such has been the case over the weekend. Tony Sayer will be here in a minute to remind me that Sky doesn't suffer in the same way. ;-) Not exactly, but there will be a sun outage for several minutes on a few days this coming weekend... |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:55:16 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Hypothetically, if two transmitters increased their power by the same amount the CCI would get neither worse nor better. Good point, but ... I am talking nonsense here ... if the distant signal become sufficiently strong and the antenna is at just the wrong position, could you not get destructive interference and no useable data signal at all? |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"J G Miller" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:55:16 +0100, Bill Wright wrote: Hypothetically, if two transmitters increased their power by the same amount the CCI would get neither worse nor better. Good point, but ... I am talking nonsense here ... if the distant signal become sufficiently strong and the antenna is at just the wrong position, could you not get destructive interference and no useable data signal at all? It all comes down to the ratio between the two signals. Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:10:39 +0100, Doctor D wrote: Every time there's the slightest sniff of a lift, Emley Moor comes crashing in with Sutton Coldfield giving us grainy analogue reception and very unreliable DTTV. Such has been the case over the weekend. Tony Sayer will be here in a minute to remind me that Sky doesn't suffer in the same way. ;-) Not exactly, but there will be a sun outage for several minutes on a few days this coming weekend... I've deliberately sat tuned into Astra 28.2E and waited for the sun to move behind the birds. It was a total anti-climax. The signal strength and quality meters on the Digibox didn't even flinch. You get a more dramatic effect during monsoon rain. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"Mark Carver" wrote in message ... I've deliberately sat tuned into Astra 28.2E and waited for the sun to move behind the birds. It was a total anti-climax. The signal strength and quality meters on the Digibox didn't even flinch. You get a more dramatic effect during monsoon rain. The last time I saw solar outage was c1988 on a 1.8m dish. In those days the sinals were right on the threshold with a dish of that size, so it didn't take much to make the thing go tits up. There did used to be this thing though, where in the early days of 13E (not sure about that now) programmes were off the air sometimes because the solar panels were screened from the sun by the earth. Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
I tend to think more of the acceptance from the sides and back than from the angles near where the aerial is pointing. Mind you, I had cause to align one of these very short 'high gain' wideband aerials the other day and it seemed so sloppy -- the front lobe was very wide. Felt odd when you're used to a grouped 18 ele. The XG10E/W also scores well on F/B ratio in comparison. I just don't know where these figures come from. I'm certain that a TC18B (or K when you could get them) will be dramatically better in this respect than an XG10W. I have great respect for the big XGs --used hundreds -- but not the little ones. The answer with Sutton, if you can't get a K, is to use a B and reduce the length of some of the directors a little bit. It's all documented in this group somewhere. I'm afraid I just can't take manufacturers' figures seriously. I'm not saying they set out to tell lies, it's just that there's so much room for embelishment. When anything interesting appears on the market I try six or ten and make my own mind up. Sometimes I do direct comparisions. In some instances I have bought ten aerials and thrown six away because they are too bad to use. Less of that nowadays though. I think all the manufacturers are pretty slick at tweaking their designs empirically. Years ago there were some grouped high gain aes on the market that were actually worse than contract 10 eles! The fact is that if you know what you're doing you can get better gain and directivity out of two stacked 18ele grouped aerials than any wideband high gain monster on the market. Bill Which is fine when you don't need high gain over the whole of bands IV and V (agreeing that high gain widebands are nearly useless at group A.) Although, around here an A diplexed with a C/D gives good results on Lark Stoke (especially on the A frequencies) and similarly diplexing a group E onto an A for Ridge Hill can work well, or even feeding the DTTV input soley with the group E. I tend to use B's on SC now. The difference even here where signal levels aren't brilliant is marginal even up at 55. The TCX 18B/K is fine, and I even found a new TC18E a while back which is stored ready for a deserving use! I don't actually need any more gain here at home, I'm averaging 90% on all muxes. I can't see how a more directional aerial would help the CCI as Emley is directly behind SC when viewed from the rx location. It's only an issue during lifts, but then the Emley digital signal causes SC analogue to become grainy, and the Emley analogue reduces the SC mux quality significantly. |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
Bill Wright wrote:
The answer with Sutton, if you can't get a K, is to use a B and reduce the length of some of the directors a little bit. It's all documented in this group somewhere. Up the top end of this thread: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....db?lnk=gst&q=# (result seems to be working nicely by the way - thanks Bill) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"Doctor D" wrote in message ... I can't see how a more directional aerial would help the CCI as Emley is directly behind SC when viewed from the rx location. That of course is the crux of the matter. I've heard tell of this problem in Ripon, where the aerial is looking south to Emley. (They are supposed to watch Bilsdale round there but don't like Tyne Tees) Bill |
Mux 56 at Sudbury last night - anyone else have problems?
"John Rumm" wrote in message ... http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....db?lnk=gst&q=# (result seems to be working nicely by the way - thanks Bill) Oh good. I did another one since then and it was OK. Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com