All posts by jb38
Below are all of jb38's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
John Maude: Re: latter, it would be an amazing coincidence if you did! because if your new satellite (?) box only has one "F" type (screwed) input connector it should be able to work on either of the twin feeds from the dish as they are technically identical.
Have you tested the box out on both of the input feeds? because if you were not using the recording facility on the the Sky+ then its LNB2 input feed could have developed a fault which would not have been noticed as LNB1 is the main input.
| link to this comment |
Martyn : And on the question of being able to receive Freeview from Wenvoe is concerned, judging by that seen on the terrain indicator map would suggest that its not really possible to achieve this due to the signal path from Wenvoe being obstructed in three separate places, and as can be seen by opening the link.
Terrain between ( m a.g.l.) and (antenna m a.g.l.) - Optimising UK DTT Freeview and Radio aerial location
| link to this comment |
Brian Greensides: Although I appreciate the point you are making but its impossible for Waltham (@ 41 miles) or Tacolneston (@ 45 miles) to be the cause of the problem you were experiencing as well as the fact that they operate on totally different channels anyway, and as Sandy is located @ 31 miles away I would doubt if it would be able to overload your receivers input either, and so purely for a test you should backtrack on what you have done by reconnecting the booster / splitter followed by checking if the quality has taken a dive, if it does then although your booster "may" have developed a fault (doubtful though!) its much more likely that the input to your booster is being affected by some powerful form of local interference such as from a newly installed mobile phone mast etc or even an upgrade that has been carried out on an existing one.
That is, unless your problem was just being caused by remnants of the the high pressure induced interference that has been recently plaguing numerous viewers in various areas! but no matter what, those two transmitters can be eliminated from the equation.
| link to this comment |
Brian Greensides: Although the frequencies of Sandy's COM 4 / 5 are indeed close together this is neither here nor there with digital receivers and especially so when they are being radiated from the same mast. However there is one type of situation that such as this would (or might!) apply, and being, if some viewer was attempting to receive a channel from a distant station whilst one of the local stations muxes was operating on an adjacent channel from the one required from the distant station, because if the signal level received from the local mux transmitter was reasonably high then this would result in the receivers auto-gain control circuitry coming into play thereby desensitising the receiver.
It should be said though that breakthrough as such would not occur, as that is something more associated with wider bandwidth analogue reception.
The point I was really trying to make is, that provided that the time factor involved between witnessing the poor quality and rectifying same by removing the splitter / booster was not excessive, meaning more than 15 minutes, because if it was then any high pressure induced interference being experienced could possibly have dropped off during the time taken to bypass the device, however if gap was relatively short then its undeniable that something changed, but whatever it was is definitely not connected with the Waltham or Tacolneston transmitters.
By the way, my reference to the possibility of a new phone mast wasn't specifically a reference to 4G but more along the lines of possible interference caused by a local mast, that said being based on Briantists reception map showing an EE facility between the B1101 and Gas Road near to Springfield Avenue that I did not see listed on the mobile phone mast location site, albeit that this in many cases is out of date as they are not obliged to publish this information.
| link to this comment |
Pete Skeldon: My reply to your query was based on you having said that you can record "free to air" channels as no one is "under normal circumstances" able to access the recording / playback side of a Sky+ HD (or any Sky+ box) without a contract with Sky for this purpose (and only!) being in force at a charge of around £10.50 per month.
The problem, and as you probably might be aware of being, that if you did contact Sky they would ask you for your viewing card number and which would immediately alert them to the fact that you do not have a contract, and as such disable that side of your box by cancelling the access code to it from your card.
However, as things are your only option is to try a complete reset on your Sky+ HD box but which will result in you losing anything previously recorded, but as the procedure varies slightly between models the exact model number of your box would be required.
| link to this comment |
Steve : The problem you refer to is most likely being caused by remnants of the high pressure induced interference that has been plaguing numerous viewers stretching across various Southern areas of the UK, the factor that makes it worse for viewers such as yourself is due to the fact that the reception you do have is not line-of-sight but via diffraction (signal bending) because of the two sizeable obstructions to the signal path from the Hannington transmitter as was mentioned by MikeB.
You can see this for yourself by opening the undermentioned link.
Terrain between ( m a.g.l.) and (antenna m a.g.l.) - Optimising UK DTT Freeview and Radio aerial location
| link to this comment |
viclaw: As MK42 could represent a distance of only 10 miles away from the Sandy transmitter if you are using any form of powered booster / splitter then try by passing it by connecting the aerial directly into the Freeview box, if though you do not use such a device then you should check with a neighbour to find out if they are being similarly affected, however if it transpires they are not then your aerial system requires checking.
| link to this comment |
MikeB: Thanks for pointing this out, as I failed to notice that viclaw had already made a posting on the same subject under a different heading, his reply to your request for a location having been made 2 minutes after the posting I had replied to.
However now its known (or appears to be) that a communal aerial is involved then I would have thought that most people would have considered that making a quick with a neighbour or anyone else who resides in the block as being the number one thing to do for an instant answer to the problem, because if others are involved then the complaint should be addressed to the management companies maintenance department as the cure for said problem is outwith the control of the resident.
| link to this comment |
john: Your problem you refer to is most likely connected with the engineering work that is taking place at the Sutton Coldfield transmitter, an engineering notice to this effect currently being in force warning of possible interruptions to the service.
Just out of curiosity, why cant you have your aerial facing Waltham? not of course that this would always help as engineering work is also taking place at Waltham.
By the way, a post code is really required for questions of this sort in order to enable a more accurate assessment to be made of the situation.
| link to this comment |
Sunday 29 September 2013 8:09PM
Clare: With regards to requiring another aerial, not necessarily! because if your Dad has been having perfectly satisfactory reception prior to the mishap then its rather obvious that the loft aerial presently used is perfectly OK.
However as far as the booster / splitter is concerned, if this is plugged into a socket in the loft then ask him to try plugging something else into the socket such as a table lamp or whatever for the purpose of verifying that the socket is still being powered, as it may not be! because boosters are extremely low powered devices and which most of have in built protection, and so I cant see the booster having been responsible for the problem.