Band pass filters -- what am I missing?

Peter Duncanson wrote:

For such a plan to be worthwhile the box would need to look at the
strength and quality of the signals received and if necessary offer the
user choices - in terms that the user can understand.

And such a box would be unlikely to retail in Tescos or Argos for 20 quid ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:43:22 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

For such a plan to be worthwhile the box would need to look at the
strength and quality of the signals received and if necessary offer the
user choices - in terms that the user can understand.

And such a box would be unlikely to retail in Tescos or Argos for 20 quid ?

With an internet connection it could be controlled at a distance by a
trained expert for a very reasonable fee.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:01:09 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:

Slightly changing the subject, didn't DSO in some countries involve the
use of the opposite polarization for digi?

Yes, Spain. Some DTT muxes were on adjacent 'taboo' allocations to analogue
(just like here), but AIUI the Spanish broadcasters were concerned about the
analogue carriers swamping out the adjacent DTTs (as happened here, notably
with the Philips On Digital boxes). So, you'd often see two aerials, one H,
the other V pointing at the same Tx, I noticed this on holidays to Santander,
and the Canary Is in '02, '04, and '06. They've DSO'd now, I visited Barcelona
on May, I didn't see any 'double installs' there, so it's doubtful that area
ever used cross pol ? Perhaps the DTT allocations there were in a different
part of the UHF band to analogue ?

Do you get the same grief as me ?

"We're on holday now - stop checking all the bloody aerials!"

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:43:22 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

For such a plan to be worthwhile the box would need to look at the
strength and quality of the signals received and if necessary offer the
user choices - in terms that the user can understand.
And such a box would be unlikely to retail in Tescos or Argos for 20 quid ?

With an internet connection it could be controlled at a distance by a
trained expert for a very reasonable fee.

And for the third of the UK population that have no internet connection ?

It's a world away from twiddling three or four thumbwheels, and that lasting
for the life of the receiver !



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

lid wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:01:09 +0100, Mark Carver


Do you get the same grief as me ?

"We're on holday now - stop checking all the bloody aerials!"

:-)

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Mark Carver wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

Slightly changing the subject, didn't DSO in some countries involve
the use of the opposite polarization for digi?

Yes, Spain. Some DTT muxes were on adjacent 'taboo' allocations to
analogue (just like here), but AIUI the Spanish broadcasters were
concerned about the analogue carriers swamping out the adjacent DTTs (as
happened here, notably with the Philips On Digital boxes). So, you'd
often see two aerials, one H, the other V pointing at the same Tx, I
noticed this on holidays to Santander, and the Canary Is in '02, '04,
and '06. They've DSO'd now, I visited Barcelona on May, I didn't see any
'double installs' there, so it's doubtful that area ever used cross pol
? Perhaps the DTT allocations there were in a different part of the UHF
band to analogue ?

Actually, now I come to think, didn't I mention to you that in one N
French town this year I saw new vertical aerials mounted below older
horizontal ones, and pointing the same way? I wonder what that was about?

Bil

lid wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:01:09 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:

Slightly changing the subject, didn't DSO in some countries involve the
use of the opposite polarization for digi?
Yes, Spain. Some DTT muxes were on adjacent 'taboo' allocations to analogue
(just like here), but AIUI the Spanish broadcasters were concerned about the
analogue carriers swamping out the adjacent DTTs (as happened here, notably
with the Philips On Digital boxes). So, you'd often see two aerials, one H,
the other V pointing at the same Tx, I noticed this on holidays to Santander,
and the Canary Is in '02, '04, and '06. They've DSO'd now, I visited Barcelona
on May, I didn't see any 'double installs' there, so it's doubtful that area
ever used cross pol ? Perhaps the DTT allocations there were in a different
part of the UHF band to analogue ?

Do you get the same grief as me ?

"We're on holday now - stop checking all the bloody aerials!"
Recently I found myself explaining to the lady sitting next to me in the
'articulated bus made to look like a train' that the reason I was
photographing the chimneys all the time was because I was interested in
the aerials. This did nothing to reassure her that I was sane.

Bill

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:46:16 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:43:22 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:

For such a plan to be worthwhile the box would need to look at the
strength and quality of the signals received and if necessary offer the
user choices - in terms that the user can understand.
And such a box would be unlikely to retail in Tescos or Argos for 20 quid ?

With an internet connection it could be controlled at a distance by a
trained expert for a very reasonable fee.

And for the third of the UK population that have no internet connection ?

They'll just have to call in the "expert" with a laptop and a connecting
cable.

I hope you realise that my suggestion was not particularly serious.

It's a world away from twiddling three or four thumbwheels, and that lasting
for the life of the receiver !

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article , J G Miller wrote:

There must be numerous ways that lists of channels for each transmitter
could be provided in a compatible way, for example over MHEG.

Yes but how does the user get the information via MHEG before the
first autoscan on a brand new box?

Why would they need to get it *before* the scan? It would make more
sense to report the available transmitters *after* the scan, with
information about signal strength and missing channels, so that the
user can make an informed decision.

-- Richard

In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Which of course leads to the "Why, Oh Why?..." question...

Why didn't they give each individual TX its own ID and allow the user
to tell the box to scan for a specified ID?

Not so easy when the 'transmitter' is a transposer.

Which just leads to asking why the developers of the DVB-T system we use
either didn't know this, or were allowed to get away with not caring or
doing anything about it. And also asking why broadcasters are allowed to
move the deckchairs so often.

Of course, as with my earlier "Why Oh, Why", these questions are meant to
be rhetorical. :-) I think we know the answers already, but perhaps more
public awarness should be drawn to the issues...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html