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

wrote:
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?


Hi,
Nothing showing up at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/transmitters/index.shtml

This can be a work of fiction though.

Rob.

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

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

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. ;-)

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

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.

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
news
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.

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

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
news
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