All posts by jb38
Below are all of jb38's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Lionel Higman: Under normal circumstances I would have automatically said that the tuners in your receivers are being overloaded by an excessively strong signal, as a booster as such should not really be required when located at just under 10 miles away from such a high powered transmitter as Belmont as I can receive it down in the Stamford area at just over 50 miles away, although admittedly the BBC channels are always superior by them always being radiated from the prime position of the top of the mast, this applying to most stations.
However the fact of you saying that you have to use a booster to receive COM5 makes me rather suspicious that there is a fault on your system, and so if you can access the splitter you should try temporarily connected the input from the aerial directly into the feed to your main TV, in other words bypassing the splitter as its not exactly unknown for the internal power supplies in these devices to fail, and so this possible reason must be eliminated.
| link to this comment |
john charlesworth: I would try carrying out a "factory reset" on your TV, this also called "default setting" or "first time installation" or some similar name dependant on equipment being used as there is no reason for not receiving ITV from Emley at that distance from the station.
By the way, if you are using any form of booster in line then try bypassing it.
| link to this comment |
Lynne Burkert: Any query involving a reception issue has to be accompanied by a post code also being given, or at least one from somewhere nearby such as a post office, as only then can the data concerning the transmitter that covers the area be known.
| link to this comment |
Mike: Purely on the issue of the TV not holding channels, according to info seen that model should have a "first time installation" option in the set up menu (manual page 19) that has the effect of returning the TV back to its default settings, was this tried?
| link to this comment |
Mike: Well although I did realise that you had already replied to Michael Perry with regards to having tried everything in the manual I just wanted to verify that this also included the "first time installation" option as you hadn't actually mentioned that, as this is about the only action that can be taken on that model guaranteed to wipe the tuners memory free of anything that may have previously resisted deletion.
However, I do agree that the aerial system referred to certainly requires to be checked out for any possible defects, as judging by the indications seen on the terrain indicator (Megalithia) no-one in your area can afford to have any deficiencies in the aerial department, because even excluding recent events I would expect reception for those who reside in the area to be of a variable nature at some time during the year, as on checking the signal path over the 39 miles or so from the transmitter its seen pass over ground at a relatively low angle from about 4 miles out as well as finally experiencing a blockage at 2.5 miles or so from your location, but with these indications excluding trees as well as man made objects the result of that indicated could actually be worse.
Reception under these type of circumstances will also usually suffer from being affected by seasonal changes related to climatic conditions as well as vegetational reasons such as trees, and even although a person might well "appear" to be having good reception the actual signal / quality level is likely to be sitting at not far above their receivers cut off threshold level, but with this fact not really being noticed if the quality is reasonably stable even although the actual signal strength might be weak.
| link to this comment |
Mike Perry: Although the Philex signal meter referred to in the link is a well designed little device than can under certain conditions serve a useful purpose, but the main problem with any of these devices is that they are incapable of measuring the most important aspect of any digital signal, that of its quality, and with this deficiency being something that can be a real impediment if the device is being used in a somewhat iffy reception area.
The reason for this being, that these type of devices work in a similar fashion to that of the low cost satellite types which are in effect not much more than an amplified RF sniffer device but fitted with a band pass filter, the difference when using satellite types is that although they also only give indications of strength its not just so important because the quality associated with a peaked sat signal is never that far away (if at all) from the strength when checked on a proper meter, or alternatively the sat boxes signal check screen, this simply being due to the fact that sat reception does not suffer from near the same level of variables that can exist with a DTT signal when being received in non line of sight situations.
This lack of a DTT quality indication can create a situation where a person attempting to align an aerial can possibly be pleased with themselves at witnessing a 70dB signal being indicated on the meter, but unknown to them with that level only being accompanied with a very low quality to the extent that any subsequent scan carried out might not result in a workable (or any) signal being received, this I am sure causing a great deal of frustration to the person attempting to align the aerial and who no doubt will be mystified by this. That said though, if they carry out a manual tune (equipment allowing) mux check this problem will soon be revealed if the TV or box used is capable of displaying a signals quality as well as the usual strength.
By the way, the reason that none of these low cost devices can differentiate between muxes is simply because that for any device to be capable of doing that requires it to be fitted with a tuner / decoder similar to that used in a Freeview receiver, although by the device being designed for accurate signal measuring purposes it has to be of a somewhat superior circuitry as far as stability is concerned, and with a price tag to match.
| link to this comment |
Lynne Burkert: Lark Stoke is indicated as your nearest transmitter @ 6.2 miles and which is obviously being received by the fact of you having reported that your small TV is seemingly able to pick up all channels OK on exactly the same aerial.
However it could also be that the level the signal is being received at is possibly lower than would be expected as I noticed that its being picked up at a very low angle, and so to determine exactly what these levels are you should carry out a signal strength check on the undermentioned programmes noting whatever is indicated and giving an update on results, as you "might" require the use of a booster in line with your aerial if the level the signal is being received at is hovering at just over the minimum required for reception.
Signal level checking on these programmes covers the five mux transmitters (exc HD) used by Lark Stoke or any "main" station, but as well as noting the levels seen you also make a note of the mux channel number that accompanies the level indications, this for the purpose of ensuring that you are not picking up any of Sutton Coldfield's mux channels which are also indicated as being possible to receive at your location.
BBC1 - ITV1 (also covers Ch4/5) - ITV3 - Pick TV - Film 4 signal level checking on these programmes cover the five muxes being used by Lark Stoke and which are /
26(BBC) - 23(ITV) - 30(HD) - 41(SDN ITV3 etc) - 44(Pick TV etc) - 47(Film4 etc)
| link to this comment |
Andy: Pleased to hear your good news with regards to having been successful in solving your problem, thanks also for having provided the highly detailed update on the work carried out, the content of once again proving that the only way of solving some types of problems is by "on-site" diagnosis followed by the subsequent testing / verification of same, something which I feel really applies to a number of complaints seen made.
| link to this comment |
Michael Perry: Well on having twice read over my reply I cant honestly say that I noticed anything said by me that could even remotely be interpreted as inferring that you had made that claim for the device, nor if it comes to it criticising anything said by you, but just simply pointing out to anyone "other than yourself" who may also have been viewing the posting and likewise thinking about purchasing the device to beware of its limitations as well as the reason for, as its an important aspect and which I am quite sure is not brought into the equation by many, and who although in past years may have been perfectly proficient at setting up aerials used for analogue reception but though not being fully aware of the pitfalls that's liable to be experienced with digital reception, and especially so when its being received under difficult conditions, this being the main point of my reply.
| link to this comment |
Thursday 4 April 2013 4:06PM
ian collins: And to add to that suggested by Michael, should you not find Ch45 then try Ch58, as I notice that you are located at roughly halfway between the Angus (18mls / 9 degrees) and Craigkelly (17 mls / 205 degrees) transmitters.