|
|
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV
(23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
In article , ian field gangprobing
scribeth thus The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV (23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. There was aerial work there the other week?. Might be something to do with it?.. http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/sandyheath/dso/index.php -- Tony Sayer |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
Trees?
Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "ian field" wrote in message ... The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV (23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message om... Trees? Not a one in sight, and even if there was why wouldn't they affect the other multiplexes? |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual
frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "ian field" wrote in message ... "Brian Gaff" wrote in message om... Trees? Not a one in sight, and even if there was why wouldn't they affect the other multiplexes? |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
In article , Brian Gaff
scribeth thus Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, Very few of them left now and the ones that are, are on a hilltop site.. but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. What after it took them ages to get Hannington fixed Brian -- Tony Sayer |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Gaff scribeth thus Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, Very few of them left now and the ones that are, are on a hilltop site.. but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. What after it took them ages to get Hannington fixed It seems to vary somewhat with the weather, today the signal quality bargraph is showing a solid 100%, on other days it fluctuates wildly. There's a six output booster distributing to various rooms with 8.6dB gain and a 2 output booster with 16.8dB has been added in front of that with the result, the bargraph spends less time on the bottom and a noticeable reduction of squares and "blue screen of death", I was wondering if I could get away with adding another 16.8dB booster - the claimed noise per booster is 3dB. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
In article , ian field gangprobing
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Gaff scribeth thus Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, Very few of them left now and the ones that are, are on a hilltop site.. but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. What after it took them ages to get Hannington fixed It seems to vary somewhat with the weather, today the signal quality bargraph is showing a solid 100%, on other days it fluctuates wildly. There's a six output booster distributing to various rooms with 8.6dB gain and a 2 output booster with 16.8dB has been added in front of that with the result, the bargraph spends less time on the bottom and a noticeable reduction of squares and "blue screen of death", I was wondering if I could get away with adding another 16.8dB booster - the claimed noise per booster is 3dB. Seems to me that a bit more aerial gain might cope better . Can you say where are you and where the aerial is?.. -- Tony Sayer |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , ian field gangprobing scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Gaff scribeth thus Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, Very few of them left now and the ones that are, are on a hilltop site.. but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. What after it took them ages to get Hannington fixed It seems to vary somewhat with the weather, today the signal quality bargraph is showing a solid 100%, on other days it fluctuates wildly. There's a six output booster distributing to various rooms with 8.6dB gain and a 2 output booster with 16.8dB has been added in front of that with the result, the bargraph spends less time on the bottom and a noticeable reduction of squares and "blue screen of death", I was wondering if I could get away with adding another 16.8dB booster - the claimed noise per booster is 3dB. Seems to me that a bit more aerial gain might cope better . Can you say where are you and where the aerial is?.. -- The aerial is on the roof and the rigger damaged the roof causing serious leaks last time, as long as the aerial looks to be OK I'd prefer not to send any more expensive cowboys up there!!! |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
|
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"ian field" wrote in message ... The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV (23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. Some tuners have the inability to show the correct signal strength.. I have had several DVB-S tuners (yes, I know it's not freeview) that would show 100% signal, but they were actually only showing 0% (no signal at all) or 100% (some signal - full signal).. Possibly there is some other noise that's appearing in the same frequency spread?... The most likely reason for it is that the BBC has once again used our money to try and thwart other operators from having valid stations.. If they can shove them out for good then they can give us radio1 DJ's in high def sound and bump their salarys up by an extra 2m/year. *joking btw*... We all know they would get an extra 5m/year. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"ian field" wrote in message ... "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , ian field gangprobing. scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , ian field gangprobing scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Gaff scribeth thus Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, Very few of them left now and the ones that are, are on a hilltop site.. but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. What after it took them ages to get Hannington fixed It seems to vary somewhat with the weather, today the signal quality bargraph is showing a solid 100%, on other days it fluctuates wildly. There's a six output booster distributing to various rooms with 8.6dB gain and a 2 output booster with 16.8dB has been added in front of that with the result, the bargraph spends less time on the bottom and a noticeable reduction of squares and "blue screen of death", I was wondering if I could get away with adding another 16.8dB booster - the claimed noise per booster is 3dB. Seems to me that a bit more aerial gain might cope better . Can you say where are you and where the aerial is?.. -- The aerial is on the roof and the rigger damaged the roof causing serious leaks last time, as long as the aerial looks to be OK I'd prefer not to send any more expensive cowboys up there!!! Well thats seems to indicate all isn't as well as what it ought be up there either!. Any idea or have you a pix of what's actually up there?.. All the other channels work fine, its only the multiplex that carries five and Virgin1 - that wouln't be the case if the aerial was dodgy. And any approximation of where you are relative to Sandy?.. -- Tony Sayer If I stood on the roof at night I could see the lights on the tower that stop aircraft flying into it. I think tony was trying to help you... Take a picture of your antenna.. Give a DIRECTION and some Mileage from the tower (I live 4 miles ssw of it) or something of the ilk |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
In article , ian field gangprobing
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , ian field gangprobing. scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , ian field gangprobing scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Brian Gaff scribeth thus Well, it could just be an accident of the size compared to the actual frequency. Other than trees, I guess it could be desensitisation by some nearby transmitter of a taxi firm or similar, Very few of them left now and the ones that are, are on a hilltop site.. but you could suggest this also would affect them all. It also seems strange if its a transmitting aerial problem for the same commonality reason. That only leaves a dodgy transmitter for that multiplex, which, I'd have thought would have had so many people complaining it would be fixed pdq. What after it took them ages to get Hannington fixed It seems to vary somewhat with the weather, today the signal quality bargraph is showing a solid 100%, on other days it fluctuates wildly. There's a six output booster distributing to various rooms with 8.6dB gain and a 2 output booster with 16.8dB has been added in front of that with the result, the bargraph spends less time on the bottom and a noticeable reduction of squares and "blue screen of death", I was wondering if I could get away with adding another 16.8dB booster - the claimed noise per booster is 3dB. Seems to me that a bit more aerial gain might cope better . Can you say where are you and where the aerial is?.. -- The aerial is on the roof and the rigger damaged the roof causing serious leaks last time, as long as the aerial looks to be OK I'd prefer not to send any more expensive cowboys up there!!! Well thats seems to indicate all isn't as well as what it ought be up there either!. Any idea or have you a pix of what's actually up there?.. All the other channels work fine, its only the multiplex that carries five and Virgin1 - that wouln't be the case if the aerial was dodgy. Not necessarily And any approximation of where you are relative to Sandy?.. -- Tony Sayer If I stood on the roof at night I could see the lights on the tower that stop aircraft flying into it. Well something very wrong there then, any chance of a close up pix of said aerial?.. -- Tony Sayer |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:26:47 +0100, "ian field"
wrote: The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV (23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. Is this a communal aerial or is there an aerial amplifier? I believe these can sometimes affect one multiplex. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:26:47 +0100, "ian field" wrote: The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV (23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. Is this a communal aerial or is there an aerial amplifier? I believe these can sometimes affect one multiplex. Its a single house installation specifically ordered from the rigger to be DVB-T compatible, an 8.6dB 6 way splitter/booster was added at the bottom of the downlead to serve several rooms. A second booster was added some months ago when there was poor signal on the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that was left in place after the signal improved again, but more recently the multiplex carrying Five and Virgin1 has become weak, the booster was then replaced with one having higher gain (16.8dB) that improved reception slightly but it varies from perfectly OK one day to fluctuating wildly the next. Someone in an earlier reply said Sandy Heath had aerial work recently - looks like they're having maintenance problems. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:38 +0100, "ian field"
wrote: "Scott" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:26:47 +0100, "ian field" wrote: The following freeview channels: Five (5), QVC (16), Virgin1 (20), Bid TV (23), Fiver (30) and 5 USA (31) are all flaky with squares most of the time and frequent "blue screen of death". In the status menu, the signal quality bargraph goes up and down like a yo-yo - including up to 100% and all the other channels are OK so its reasonable to assume the aerial isn't too bad, so can anyone tell me what's going on? TIA. Is this a communal aerial or is there an aerial amplifier? I believe these can sometimes affect one multiplex. Its a single house installation specifically ordered from the rigger to be DVB-T compatible, an 8.6dB 6 way splitter/booster was added at the bottom of the downlead to serve several rooms. A second booster was added some months ago when there was poor signal on the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that was left in place after the signal improved again, but more recently the multiplex carrying Five and Virgin1 has become weak, the booster was then replaced with one having higher gain (16.8dB) that improved reception slightly but it varies from perfectly OK one day to fluctuating wildly the next. Someone in an earlier reply said Sandy Heath had aerial work recently - looks like they're having maintenance problems. Have you tried without the booster? I thought boosters were a bad idea for digital and also that the connection from aerial to decoder should be uninterrupted. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
Its a single house installation specifically ordered from the rigger to be
DVB-T compatible, an 8.6dB 6 way splitter/booster was added at the bottom of the downlead to serve several rooms. A second booster was added some months ago when there was poor signal on the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that was left in place after the signal improved again, but more recently the multiplex carrying Five and Virgin1 has become weak, the booster was then replaced with one having higher gain (16.8dB) that improved reception slightly but it varies from perfectly OK one day to fluctuating wildly the next. Someone in an earlier reply said Sandy Heath had aerial work recently - looks like they're having maintenance problems. If your having to add a "booster" when you can see the top of the aircraft warning lights then it rather seems to me that something is very wrong with the aerial system there. All channels are fine here and equal level at 18 miles LOS from Sandy just south of Cambridge so I rather doubt its a transmitter problem... I can't recommended anyone but it would seem to me that the attentions of a "competent" rigger are called for.... Any possibility you could post some pix of this aerial just to make sure that its the right sort and pointing in the right direction and are there any large trees etc nearby?.. -- Tony Sayer |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:38 +0100, ian field
wrote: Its a single house installation specifically ordered from the rigger to be DVB-T compatible, an 8.6dB 6 way splitter/booster was added at the bottom of the downlead to serve several rooms. There is no point putting a booster at the bottom if the problem is lack of signal. It needs to go at the top. If you just need to split, then you must have adequate signal level first. A second booster was added some months ago when there was poor signal on the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that was left in place after the signal improved again, but more recently the multiplex carrying Five and Virgin1 has become weak, the booster was then replaced with one having higher gain (16.8dB) that improved reception slightly but it varies from perfectly OK one day to fluctuating wildly the next. Added where? Increasing gain doesn't generally increase receive margin, especially if put in the wrong place. You need to get levels measured at the top and then work out where to go from there. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:37 +0100, Scott wrote:
Have you tried without the booster? I thought boosters were a bad idea for digital and also that the connection from aerial to decoder should be uninterrupted. Both are myths spread by the ignorant. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:16:25 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:37 +0100, Scott wrote: Have you tried without the booster? I thought boosters were a bad idea for digital and also that the connection from aerial to decoder should be uninterrupted. Both are myths spread by the ignorant. I am happy to accept that I am ignorant, but there are others on the group who have also expressed concerns about the use of aerial amplifiers. As you clearly regard yourself as an expert, would you care to enlighten us all on the subject? |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"Scott" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:16:25 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:37 +0100, Scott wrote: Have you tried without the booster? I thought boosters were a bad idea for digital and also that the connection from aerial to decoder should be uninterrupted. Both are myths spread by the ignorant. I am happy to accept that I am ignorant, but there are others on the group who have also expressed concerns about the use of aerial amplifiers. As you clearly regard yourself as an expert, would you care to enlighten us all on the subject? AFAIK the main concern with amplifiers is the noise they introduce to the signal path - I asked about this in an earlier post but the only reply I got was someone answering my question with a question. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:39:21 +0100, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:16:25 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:37 +0100, Scott wrote: Have you tried without the booster? I thought boosters were a bad idea for digital and also that the connection from aerial to decoder should be uninterrupted. Both are myths spread by the ignorant. I am happy to accept that I am ignorant, I wasn't necessarily meaning you. You are probably just repeating what you heard from a bloke who "knows" about these things. but there are others on the group who have also expressed concerns about the use of aerial amplifiers. Properly used they are a benefit and in some cases an absolute necessity. Wrongly used they make virtually no difference or in some cases make things worse. As you clearly regard yourself as an expert, would you care to enlighten us all on the subject? See my other post. To summarise, you need to get the most signal out of the sky you can, to give adequate margin before distribution, using an appropriate aerial. When distributing, you need to take account of the losses involved in doing so and amplify BEFORE you lose the signal. Amplification adds noise and amplifies the noise that is already there as well as the signal. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:38 +0100, ian field wrote: Its a single house installation specifically ordered from the rigger to be DVB-T compatible, an 8.6dB 6 way splitter/booster was added at the bottom of the downlead to serve several rooms. There is no point putting a booster at the bottom if the problem is lack of signal. It needs to go at the top. If you just need to split, then you must have adequate signal level first. A second booster was added some months ago when there was poor signal on the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that was left in place after the signal improved again, but more recently the multiplex carrying Five and Virgin1 has become weak, the booster was then replaced with one having higher gain (16.8dB) that improved reception slightly but it varies from perfectly OK one day to fluctuating wildly the next. Added where? Increasing gain doesn't generally increase receive margin, especially if put in the wrong place. You need to get levels measured at the top and then work out where to go from there. The aerial riggers that put up the freeview aerial damaged the roof which then leaked causing extensive water damage indoors - I'm very reluctant to send anymore expensive cowboys up there! A few months ago there was a problem with the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that cleared up so I must have a magic aerial that goes bad (but only for one multiplex at a time) for a few weeks then comes good again, now its the multiplex carrying Five that's fine one day and flaky the next - maybe there's a gremlin up there with a box of wave traps deciding which multiplex to pick off next. People are still asking me about the trees in the signal path days after I pointed out there are none. |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:46:38 +0100, ian field wrote: Its a single house installation specifically ordered from the rigger to be DVB-T compatible, an 8.6dB 6 way splitter/booster was added at the bottom of the downlead to serve several rooms. There is no point putting a booster at the bottom if the problem is lack of signal. It needs to go at the top. If you just need to split, then you must have adequate signal level first. A second booster was added some months ago when there was poor signal on the multiplex carrying the ITV channels, that was left in place after the signal improved again, but more recently the multiplex carrying Five and Virgin1 has become weak, the booster was then replaced with one having higher gain (16.8dB) that improved reception slightly but it varies from perfectly OK one day to fluctuating wildly the next. It sounds increasingly dreadful. Bill |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:39:21 +0100, Scott wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:16:25 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe wrote: On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:02:37 +0100, Scott wrote: Have you tried without the booster? I thought boosters were a bad idea for digital and also that the connection from aerial to decoder should be uninterrupted. Both are myths spread by the ignorant. I am happy to accept that I am ignorant, I wasn't necessarily meaning you. You are probably just repeating what you heard from a bloke who "knows" about these things. but there are others on the group who have also expressed concerns about the use of aerial amplifiers. Properly used they are a benefit and in some cases an absolute necessity. Wrongly used they make virtually no difference or in some cases make things worse. As you clearly regard yourself as an expert, would you care to enlighten us all on the subject? See my other post. To summarise, you need to get the most signal out of the sky you can, to give adequate margin before distribution, using an appropriate aerial. When distributing, you need to take account of the losses involved in doing so and amplify BEFORE you lose the signal. Amplification adds noise and amplifies the noise that is already there as well as the signal. I'll give you an example that I saw this very day. The scene is a communal OAP centre with 40 bungalows on the site. The communal ae is on Emley, and had perfect LOS until a large steel framed building started to go up about 100 yards away. It's one of those new polyclinics. The steel frame being complete, the contractors started on Friday to install wire mesh safety barriers on each level. These almost reach each ceiling. The movement of the crane gave the problem an interesting dynamic quality. Unsurprisingly reception at the centre was affected. In fact signal levels dropped by about 28dB. This meant that the levels available at each bungy were about 20dB below threshold and were also covered in amplifier noise. There was also some multipath. The residents had no real reception, just very snowy analogue. On Saturday the son of one old lady came round for his weekly visit. Seeing the telly he went off somewhere and bought one of those dreadful set-back amps with the curious curved case and the variable gain control. This had no beneficial effect whatsoever. With the gain down the snowy analogue picture was slightly more snowy; with it up it had a strange grainy pattern. He took it back to the shop and they tested it, and refused a refund, saying that it was unsaleable as he had destroyed the bubble pack (how else to get it out?). He re-installed it at mother's. I went along today (called out today) and discovered what the problem was with the system. Whilst I was on the phone discussing things with the landlord this chap came and asked me to check his mother's reception. I'd added enough amplification to get the levels correct at the bungys (though not at the head-end input of course) as a temporary measure. At mother's the analogue was present but a bit snowy, and it kept fading. The digi was hopeless. I explained the problem and said that we would be either bringing in the signal from elsewhere by underground cable, or possibly using a different transmitter, but that either would not happen overnight. At this he said that he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of the splendid booster. I advised him to write to them, but expressed the view that he was wasting his time. Once the signal/noise ratio is poor you can't improve it by amplification. In fact you can only make it worse. If amplification appears to improve reception is is because the device following the 'booster' is 'deaf' -- insensitive or noisy. Bill |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
"ian field" wrote in message ... People are still asking me about the trees in the signal path days after I pointed out there are none. You have to be patient with us. Some of us are getting on a bit you know. "I said there aren't any trees!" "Fleas? No, there aren't any fleas. Not on me anyway." Bill |
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
|
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
|
The five multiplex (Cambs & Beds).
Something is not right up there, it could be water in the co-ax cable,
an open circuit cable, a short circuit cable .. something frequency selective. What you need is a good well equipped experienced rigger to put this balls up right!.. People are still asking me about the trees in the signal path days after I pointed out there are none. OK .. well that rules out the number one cause then. Any large buildings or things like cranes around?.... -- Tony Sayer Nope. Well in the absence of any further info and the reluctance to get a proper rigger to have a look I don't quite know what else to advise. Except adding amplification is very likely to make this worse. In fact where we live some 18 miles from the 'heath we've had to put a small attenuator (device for reducing the signal) into the line to the distribution amplifier input this was so as to stop the much stronger analogue signals causing intermodulation and spurious signals across the band!.. -- Tony Sayer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com