Piers: I dont really think can be classed as a local when its approximately 17 miles away, however I suspect that the installer was thinking along the lines that when Waltham goes on high the you receive could be too strong and that the will need to be backed off slightly.

That said though, it is possible for transmission patterns to change to the detriment of a particular area when power is increased, but I really dont think that was what he was referring to, as unless the trees across from you are of the evergreen type then they presently wont have that terribly much of a block on your signal, but however this could well change when they grow leaves again.

link to this comment

C39 (618.0MHz) after switchover
Wednesday 12 January 2011 4:16PM

Matt: If you check that site again you will see the disclaimer notice immediately under the "prediction" of what's possible in the York area, the disclaimer being very applicable in this case as what's receivable is not exactly as stated on the, emphasis being on the latter word as that's what always applies when carrying out checks using these type of sites as its nearly impossible for anyone to give exact forecasts.

link to this comment

C39 (618.0MHz) after switchover
Wednesday 12 January 2011 6:07PM

Matt Mikola: Yes, I fully appreciate and understand your annoyance as you obviously tried to find out what you could receive, but unfortunately just like most things nowadays the detail is in the small print and maybe its this that could be made somewhat larger than it is to draw peoples attention to it.

You see the point is that a near 100% accurate of what is achievable can only be given if its a pair of wires that connects the source to the , with prediction dropping to about 90% accuracy, however when dealing with signals exact sciences, nor anywhere near them, does not come into it as so many variables exist, with this applying to both forecasting of the areas that's possible to receive a given signal and also the best aerial to use for the of, biggest in many cases most definitely "not" being the best, albeit to the gullible they are of great benefit in a psychological way!

Anyway I can fully endorse the Humax you have purchased as they have great receivers as far as sensitivity is concerned.

link to this comment

My high gain aerial can't get all the Freeview channels I e
Thursday 13 January 2011 5:03PM

Piers: To be quite honest about it I wouldn't really consider what you have reported to be in any way out of the ordinary when you are receiving signals from transmitters presently operating on a much lower to what they will be doing come time.

The other point is, and without wishing to appear as a prophet of doom! but even when or any other does go on high power an occasional glitch is something that can be expected when receiving digital TV, albeit of course these being absolutely minimal compared to what is presently experienced. (hopefully!)

TV signals are about the only ones that have a reasonably high immunity to , with about the only thing that ever does being very heavy rain clouds such as experienced during a thunderstorm, although even that effect can be made somewhat less severe simply by using a slightly larger such as the types fitted by etc in Scottish installations.

The you mentioned are on MUX1 & 2 and out of interest I would be interested to know what the strength / is on both of them, these being Ch49 (698Mhz) and Ch23 (490Mhz)

link to this comment

My high gain aerial can't get all the Freeview channels I e
Friday 14 January 2011 9:43PM

Piers: Re: the signal levels provided by your installer, although all being about the 60% mark they would appear to be reasonably good by the fact that they don't have any large variations between each of them, this rather indicating that your across the six multiplexes is quite evenly balanced even although Mux's 5&6 on your list are transmitting on a very much lower than the rest, especially when compared to Mux1.

However that said, the supplier should really have given you two readings for each Mux (D1-6 on your list) as the ones they supplied are only signal levels and there is always a indication attached to a signal level, the quality really being of prime importance as its the aspect of the signal that can really determine just how free of glitches your viewing will be, the quality indication always preferably being about the same or higher than the signal reading, for example on my own set up the signal is 65% with a 95% quality indication on three of the four Mux's I can receive, one of (3 on your list) hovering at reception threshold level and with virtually from Mux's 5&6 on your list, this due to a combination of their low transmitting power coupled and my screened location.

Anyway I feel that come your set up should be fine, but just for your own record you should carry out a signal level check on each of the six Mux's, as the signal strength shown usually always has a quality bar running parallel to it, this facility generally being accessed from your set up menu in the tune section, although you do not require to actually tune to see the scale.

Mux concerned being 49 -23 -26 - 33 - 45 - 42 (before switchover).

link to this comment

Diagnostics - old version
Saturday 15 January 2011 4:04PM

Susan: Testing on one of my own Humax boxes the only warnings I get given are (1) No or bad ", the reason for this being somewhat self explanatory as the was done by allowing the signal to drop down through un-powering the amp, or (2) " scrambled or is not available", with this being the warning you will get if you select either a channel or one that has stopped broadcasting for the evening, for example CBBC or CBeebies after 7pm in the evening.

What you have seen has to be caused by one of these things mentioned.

link to this comment

m.j.abbott: Yes you can but you will have to use a jumper link between LNB1 and LNB2 input to do so, the problem you may then experience is if you try to record two separate programmes at the same time, or even if they overlap, as the two programmes will have to be on the same polarity (V or H) for or a message will come on warning you of a clash and requesting you delete one of them.

Apart from that it will work perfectly OK so long as you remember that should you decide at a later date to fit a dual or quad block you will have to do a complete reset of the system (where you enter the postcode) or the box will still consider that you are using a monoblock and warn you of a clash as it is unable to detect the change to a proper twin input.

link to this comment

Dave
Sunday 16 January 2011 12:15PM

Shelley: The term "digi box" in generally accepted terms always refers to a set top box, but however if you are indeed referring to your new TV having built in then you wont be able to get Dave as its not a Freesat .

Should on the other hand you are referring to your TV having then it should be on channel 19 transmitted on C, which of course you possibly might not be receiving depending location / strength, a way to whether or not you can is to try viewing E4+1(Ch29)as its also on MuxC.

link to this comment

Diagnostics - old version
Monday 17 January 2011 4:17PM

Susan - As you are receiving these messages on a Humax box that indicates the is suffering from intermittent strength / problems, the latter being the more important as indeed has already mentioned, as the 61-71% strength you report is perfectly OK on a Humax box.

For a you should leave the strength / quality scale running for a while whilst observing it, as if you do I am sure you will see dips showing up every now and again roughly corresponding to the time scale of the break ups experienced.

The other thing you could do is to note what the MUX number is (not EPG number)associated with the scale you are viewing, this done preferably whilst you are on the programme EPG number that gives you the most problems.

link to this comment

Page 2