Full Freeview on the Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham, England) transmitter
 | Google Streetview |  | Google map |  | Bing map |  | Google Earth |  | 52.600,-1.835 or 52°36'1"N 1°50'5"W |  | B75 5JJ |
The symbol shows the location of the Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham, England) transmitter which serves 1,870,000 homes. The bright green areas shown where the signal from this transmitter is strong, dark green areas are poorer signals. Those parts shown in yellow may have interference on the same frequency from other masts.
This transmitter has no current reported problems
The BBC and Digital UK report there are no faults or engineering work on the Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham, England) transmitter._______
Digital television services are broadcast on a multiplexes (or Mux) where many stations occupy a single broadcast frequency, as shown below.
64QAM 8K 3/4 27.1Mb/s DVB-T MPEG2
DTG-12 QSPK 8K 3/4 8.0Mb/s DVB-T MPEG2
H/V: aerial position (horizontal or vertical)
Which Freeview channels does the Sutton Coldfield transmitter broadcast?
If you have any kind of Freeview fault, follow this Freeview reset procedure first.Digital television services are broadcast on a multiplexes (or Mux) where many stations occupy a single broadcast frequency, as shown below.
64QAM 8K 3/4 27.1Mb/s DVB-T MPEG2
DTG-12 QSPK 8K 3/4 8.0Mb/s DVB-T MPEG2
H/V: aerial position (horizontal or vertical)
Which BBC and ITV regional news can I watch from the Sutton Coldfield transmitter?
BBC Midlands Today 2.9m homes 10.9%
from Birmingham B1 1RF, 15km south-southwest (200°)
to BBC West Midlands region - 66 masts.
ITV Central News 2.9m homes 10.9%
from Birmingham B1 2JT, 15km south-southwest (201°)
to ITV Central (West) region - 65 masts.
All of lunch, weekend and 80% evening news is shared with Central (East)
Are there any self-help relays?
| Burton (shobnall) | Transposer | 1 km W Burton-on-Trent | 60 homes |
| Coalville | Transposer | 18 km NW Leicester | 600 homes |
| Solihull | Transposer | Land Rover building | 400 homes |
How will the Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham, England) transmission frequencies change over time?
| 1950s-80s | 1984-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-2011 | 2011-13 | 7 Mar 2018 | ||||
| VHF | B E T | B E T | B E T | B E K T | W T | ||||
| C4 | BBCtvwaves | ||||||||
| C33 | com7 | ||||||||
| C35 | com8 | ||||||||
| C36 | LOCAL2 | ||||||||
| C39 | +ArqB | ArqB | |||||||
| C40 | BBC2waves | BBC2waves | BBC2waves | +BBCB | BBCB | ||||
| C42 | SDN | SDN | |||||||
| C43 | ITVwaves | ITVwaves | ITVwaves | BBCA | BBCA | ||||
| C45 | ArqA | ArqA | |||||||
| C46 | BBC1waves | BBC1waves | BBC1waves | D3+4 | D3+4 | ||||
| C48 | _local | ||||||||
| C50tv_off | C4waves | C4waves | C4waves | ||||||
| C51tv_off | LB | ||||||||
| C55tv_off | com7tv_off | ||||||||
| C56tv_off | COM8tv_off |
tv_off Being removed from Freeview (for 5G use) after November 2020 / June 2022 - more
Table shows multiplexes names see this article;
green background for transmission frequencies
Notes: + and - denote 166kHz offset; aerial group are shown as A B C/D E K W T
waves denotes analogue; digital switchover was 7 Sep 11 and 21 Sep 11.
How do the old analogue and currrent digital signal levels compare?
| Analogue 1-4 | 1000kW | |
| SDN, ARQA, ARQB, BBCA, D3+4, BBCB | (-7dB) 200kW | |
| com7 | (-10.5dB) 89.2kW | |
| com8 | (-10.7dB) 86kW | |
| LB | (-20dB) 10kW | |
| Mux 1*, Mux 2*, Mux A*, Mux B*, Mux C*, Mux D* | (-21dB) 8kW |
Which companies have run the Channel 3 services in the Sutton Coldfield transmitter area
|
|
Friday, 29 March 2013
S
Sid8:17 PM
Ch39 breaking up and very poor signal here in Worcester today but back to normal in late afternoon.
| link to this comment |
jb38: Based on further observation, I would say that my previous report of some improvement was somewhat premature and that, in reality, moving the Humax further away from the TV hasn't made any difference.
The TV is an 37" LCD model which we bought new in about 2006 - but I have a feeling that it was probably a discontinued model at the time. [I'm not sure that plasma TVs were avaialable at the time].
I understand what you're saying about the respective built-in quality reporting mechanisms. But, aside from that, the proof of the pudding is in the eating! The Humax's picture breaks up, the TV's doesn't.
I also realise that having the signal skimming along the ground doesn't help. [Prior to DSO, digital TV was very unreliable, so I didn't buy a PVR until after DSO]. But that still begs the question as to why the TV is ok but the Humax isn't.
I also find it slightly odd that the two muxes which play up are not at the extremes of the frequency range. Well, actually, COM6 on 39+ is the lowest of the 6 muxes, but well within the range of a Group B aerial, (and Channel 5 analog used to work per4fectly well on Ch 37). COM5 on 45 is flanked by PSB1 on 43 and PSB2 on 46 - both of which are ok.
That makes me wonder whether there's something inherently inferior about the signal quality on the COM muxes relative to the PSBs.
| link to this comment |
Watt's: mapW's Freeview map terrainW's terrain plot wavesW's frequency data W's Freeview Detailed Coverage
Saturday, 30 March 2013
J
jb385:21 PM
Watt: Well I did have my doubts as to whether or not the improvement found by moving the box was just purely coincidental hence why I mentioned "seemingly", although it does have to be admitted that many flat screen TV's are guilty of emitting quite high levels of "low frequency" RF interference which can in some cases interfere with signals carried in HDMI cables etc and so what ian from notts suggested is a valid point.
On the subject of the Humax suffering from picture beak up whereas the TV on the same channel doesn't, obviously that is something which cannot be disputed irrespective of how alien this might seem to myself or anyone else with knowledge of Humax boxes and their performance, and of course it cant be down to a rogue box by you having said that this is a replacement, although I remain highly suspicious as to the reason for this and feel that some other as yet undiscovered factor is involved, although this could soon be verified or not by the box being given "exactly" the same comparison test (between TV and box on same muxes) but on another installation, as its about the only way of verifying one way or the other as to the exact reason for this apparent anomaly.
Of course, not unless unbeknown to myself Humax have started fitting alternative tuners to that normally used and which are possibly of somewhat less sensitivity than the originals, I might check up on that! although I would appreciate if you could inform me as to the model number of your Philips TV for the similar purpose of checking up on its particular tuner.
I would like to reiterate though, that the main reason for my interest in what you had reported was purely concerning the issue of the signal breaking up on the Humax but not on the Philips, because apart from the fact that in situations such as yours (low signal path etc) reception difficulties are almost inevitable to occur at certain times of the year its also quite common for muxes "not" to be received at the same (or even near to) level as each other for reasons other than that connected to the aerial being used, simply because that no matter how carefully things are planned in the design stages RF signals do not beam out from the mast in exactly the same way, as well as the fact that even if they did, then they can still be received at differing levels connected to the terrain that the signals are passing over.
| link to this comment |
Sunday, 31 March 2013
I
ian from notts8:46 AM
Nottingham
Watt- have you tried by-passing the humax and going direct to tv ? just to see if the tv is ok or takes up the fault itself ?
some recorders do boost the signal through themselves when feeding the tv ?
can you check signal/ quality lavels on the tv when you do this?
also do you know what strength the distributter is ?
| link to this comment |
ian's: mapI's Freeview map terrainI's terrain plot wavesI's frequency data I's Freeview Detailed Coverage
jb38: Many thanks for your continued interest. The TV is a Philips 37PFL5522D/05
Looking at Lark Stoke vs Sutton Coldfield, I'm loath to move to LS because - according to my calculations - the signal strength which I'm likely to receive (1,260 watts at 23.3 kM vs 200kW at 38.4 kM) would be lower by a factor of 60! Also, we seem to be line for some additional HD muxes from SC in a year or two, but I'm not sure when - if ever - LS will carry those.
I suppose that I could hedge my bets by investing in a Group K aerial, which should work for either.
Ian: I've just tried what you suggested. When I plug the downlead directly into the TV, the picture is fine and it reports "excellent" quality on the same channels which are poor, with picture breakup, on the Humax.
I would have been surprised if the Humax provided a better signal to the TV than it used for its own purposes - added to which, "quality" implies signal to noise ratio rather than just signal level. It looks to me as if the Humax is seeing some noise which the TV isn't seeing!
The distribution amp is a Wickes CM7297 (probably made by Labgear) which I've had since Adam was a lad. It claims to have a gain of 6dB on each of its 6 outlet ports.
| link to this comment |
Watt's: mapW's Freeview map terrainW's terrain plot wavesW's frequency data W's Freeview Detailed Coverage
J
jb382:17 PM
Watt: Thanks for the update, but just a little query regarding the signal passing through the Humax and which I am not quite sure about the answer.
If you view the TV whilst its aerial is being looped through the Humax is this when reception on the TV is poor? because if it is then have you tried using another jumper lead between both? because the signal from the aerial passing though the Humax should not really be that much different (if at all) to when its connected directly into the TV, maybe you could clarify on that point.
Secondly, although you may have already done this, but go into the Humax's power management settings and make sure that the "power saving on standby" is switched off, because if not that kills the aerial loop though facility when the Humax is sitting on standby.
On the subject of the power levels between Lark Stoke a Sutton Coldfield, although a massive difference does exist between the two it has to be looked at in another way, insomuch that the signal from Lark Stoke (@ 14 mls) is relatively line of sight as well as being nearly 10 miles closer than Sutton C at nearly 24 miles away, but with the signal path from it travelling close to the ground in the latter stages of its travel.
| link to this comment |
jb38: Thanks for your further input.
I'm not sure I totally understand your first question, but here goes. When I'm viewing TV using the TV's own tuner, the picture is perfectly ok regardless of whether the downlead is plugged directly into the TV or looped via the Humax. It's only when viewing (or recording) using the Humax's tuners that breakup occurs. Removing the RF lead between Humax and TV makes no difference to this.
Power saving on standby is definitely turned off. But, in any case, that would only affect trying to use the TV's own tuner with the Humax on standby - which I don't ever do. And, as I've said, I haven't got a problem with the TV's tuner.
I understand what you're saying about uninterrupted signal path being more important than power output, but there are limits! For example, I can SEE the Leamington Spa transmitter from my house but it wouldn't be any use to me because - besides only carrying a few channels - its power output is diddly sqat. Having said that, about 20% of my neighbours have their aerials pointing at Lark Stoke (the rest being SC) so there must be an acceptable signal.
Thye more I think about it, the more convinced I'm becoming that something changed last December. Prior to that, the first Humax had worked perfectly ok for 15 months or so - and then suddenly this problem started happening. I've tried to eliminate everything I might have done to cause it - for example, by removing my power-line ethernet adapters. So what sort of external factors might there be? Some equipment or other installed by a neighbour? A new building along the signal path? [To have any effect, that would probably need to be within the final 3 or 4 miles where the ground clearance is low, and I'm not aware of anything.
| link to this comment |
Watt's: mapW's Freeview map terrainW's terrain plot wavesW's frequency data W's Freeview Detailed Coverage
J
jb386:25 PM
Watt: That's OK, as my query was only really concerned with that mentioned in the first paragraph of my reply, and which you have now clarified.
As far as the power saving in standby is concerned, the only reason I mentioned this is because most people leave their PVR box in standby when its not actually being used, and which in most boxes does not kill the aerial loop through whereas it will in a Humax "if" the power save is on.
Regarding external factors, I very much doubt if anything external is responsible for the problem if your TV is capable of receiving the same mux "glitch free" that the Humax has difficulty with, as otherwise I would not really consider that any problem exists, and especially so with knowledge of S.C's signal path routing, but though by the fact of you having observed that a number of aerials are seen to be facing towards Lark Stoke (same programmes as Sutton.C) is strongly inclined to indicate that your area is one where reception can vary quite considerably within relatively short distances, hence the reason for an aerial installer possibly deciding that Lark Stoke is a better bet for reliability.
On a lighter note though, I think that the problem is really caused by that "super tuner" used in your Philips, something that I intend to check on at the first opportunity I get, because I feel that even if you temporarily installed the Humax on one of your extension TV's (even using a scart) its liable to perform just the same.
| link to this comment |
jb38: I think we may be getting somewhere. I have also been discussing my problem on one of the Humax-related forums, and some of the people there have been suggesting that I may have too much or too little signal, and that some experimentation with additional amplifiers and/or attenuators may shed some light on the matter. Some were also pointing the finger of suspicion at the Wickes distribution amp.
The first thing I did was to connect an additional Micromark 12dB booster immediately before the Humax. This had the effect of raising the signal level from 55% to 72%, but made no difference to the quality. I then took the Wickes distribution amp out of circuit, joining its input and (the appropriate) output cables with a passive co-ax coupler. This reduced the signal level to about 60% BUT the quality was now rock steady at 100%, even on the troublesome muxes. I then removed the booster which I had just inserted. The signal level went down to 40-odd% BUT the quality remained at 100%
I've now installed the Mircomark booster in place of the Wickes amp for the Humax and main TV (with another output from the Micromark going into the Wickes amp for the other TVs). Incidentally the only other TV in frequent use is a 26" Philips with virtually identical innards to the main TV - and that had always been ok, and continues to be ok despite getting its signal from the Wickes amp.
So although I need to run with it for a bit longer and, in particular, give SWMBO a chance to break it ('cos it seems more likely to fall over when she's watching it!) before being sure that I've fixed it, I'm moderately optimistic.
If this turns out to be the case, it leaves the unanswered questions:
1. What is the Wickes amp doing which the Humax doesn't like but the Philips TVs don't mind?, and
2. Why did it suddenly start doing it only recently (after upwards of 25 years of faultless operation?
| link to this comment |
Watt's: mapW's Freeview map terrainW's terrain plot wavesW's frequency data W's Freeview Detailed Coverage
J
jb389:23 PM
Watt: Now you have just touched on something I was going to ask about regarding that Wickes unit as I was unable to find out any details about it, as I wanted to find out if its a self contained unit or powered by an external power supply via its coax downlead from one of the outputs, because a fault condition on this type of system can cause a DC voltage to appear on the aerial output socket and which can cause problems on receivers not fitted with an isolation capacitor behind the aerial input socket.
Although judging by your latest reports it would appear that the device is working by the fact of the signal being reduced if its bypassed, pity that you dont have a simple test meter though as you could measure if there was any voltage (approx 9 volts DC) across the coax connector that plugs into the Humax.
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please