All posts by jb38
Below are all of jb38's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Re posting just made (@ 8.28PM) jb38 should really have been used to avoid confusion.
| link to this comment |
Re: John - Correction to PID's listed, they should have been Vid-0514 and Audio-0652 for ITV1 on Ch31 MUX.
(Merrydown and accuracy does not really go hand in hand!).
| link to this comment |
Nick Martin: Yes! as dependant on where you are located it wouldn't surprise me, as the Freeview tuners used in Panasonics G20 ranges are amongst the most sensitive you can get, as just to prove a point I recently carried out a test by viewing the same programme on three different brands of equipment at the same time, this done on ITV3 which is a real problem channel for my area, and although bad glitches were observed on two of the devices (a Humax 9200T & Hitachi fed into monitors) they only showed up as relatively minor disturbances on the Panasonic. (Hitachi by far the worst!)
All three devices being fed from a powered splitter connected to one of the two amplified log aerials I use.
| link to this comment |
Jonathan D: Regarding your query, its always advisable (indeed a necessity!) when seeking assistance with reception for a person to give an indication of their locality, as one of a few possible reasons for you not picking anything up from any of the aerial points could be that you are not in a Freeview reception area?, it would have been interesting to know if anything had been picked up if you had carried out an analogue sweep of the channels.
A further piece of info that would also be of help is to know if the aerial points you refer to are Co-ax or "F" socket types, satellite obviously exclusively using "F" sockets, albeit that they can also be used for Freeview reception, whereas Co-ax types are exclusively for non-satellite use. (or as under mentioned!)
Another possible use the previous owner could have had for the sockets was to feed the Sky box's analogue RF output to the other rooms so that Sky or other analogue TV programmes could be viewed, the latter assuming that you do have an operational aerial!
A final point thats worth looking at is to try and check if all the sockets are all wired back to the loft, and if they are to make sure that there isnt a distribution amp installed up there that has possibly been switched off by the previous owner of the property.
| link to this comment |
nick: Have you tried entering the default code of 0000 then pressing OK.
Another "reported" (unable to verify!) cure is to hold the power button in whilst removing the rear power lead - wait a few seconds then re-insert it whilst still holding the power button in, if this works it should return to the first time set up mode. (more than one attempt may be necessary!)
I personally feel though that its more the case of the device being un-powered that is effecting a cure rather than anything involving the power button, but that's what has been reported.
| link to this comment |
Danny: The answer is NO! as freeview is a terrestrial based system and not a satellite one, a Sky dish would only be suitable if you were thinking along the lines of a using Freesat for reception, which as the name obviously suggests is satellite based.
| link to this comment |
J
Waltham (Leicestershire, England) Full Freeview transmitterWednesday 11 May 2011 6:01PM
Newcastle Upon Tyne
Billy (1.50pm posting): As far as your Aunt is concerned, if its the area I think that you may be referring to there is a great possibility that Freesat might well be her only option as RF dead areas do exist and Uppingham does contain some difficult terrain as far as reception is concerned, however as far as your own reception is concerned do you know if the aerial installer actually tested for a signal from Sandy (Anglia) rather than concentrating on Waltham?
The reason I enquire is, I am located in a difficult area West of Stamford and prior to Sandy's "main" transmitters switching to high power operation I could barely receive any signal whatsoever from there, whereas after switchover I immediately started to receive quite a viewable signal on my Panasonic TV with indications of approx 65% strength and 85% quality, however after having made some alterations to my aerial set up I now get a consistent 100% on both strength and quality (inc perfect HD channel reception!), these results now enabling me to use Sandy as my main station and keep Waltham as the second choice via a differently positioned aerial.
It should be said though that in difficult non line of sight areas involving valleys etc the usual rule adopted by many (although not all!) aerial installers of "one type fits all" (usually some form of Yagi and mounted as high as possible) can actually result in an inferior signal, as in these type of situations experimentation is always necessary for satisfactory results, with in my particular case me finding that the aerial directed towards Sandy gave a far superior signal / quality reading when mounted at a particular gutter level position to when being tried out on the chimney.
That said though, I would hold off doing anything until after Waltham has switched to high power operation in August, as I feel that a high percentage of problems presently experienced by many who use this transmitter could well be rectified after this event, that is allowing for the fact that digital terrestrial reception can never really be as glitch free as what's obtained from satellite reception.
| link to this comment |
Paul: Irrespective of anything else that may have been mentioned, your question would basically appear to have been asked because of you experiencing somewhat erratic reception of Ch67, however an important point that's not been mentioned but which makes me rather curious is with regards to what the signal strength / quality indication levels are that you getting on the MUX channels that you do receive? especially Ch67 in relation to Ch49 or Ch64!
The point of this being, that any query made by anyone about a reception problem should always (if at all possible!) be accompanied with info on signal strength / quality indications seen displayed on their TV etc (in the tuning menu options) whilst viewing the problem channel concerned, or if not able to receive it at all then what the level indications are of the actual MUX transmitter channel in question, this info from the transmission details at the top of the page.
The reason I ask is, if your signal / quality is hovering just above the so called "digital cliff" cut off level then that can possibly be improved which in turn should help the problem, but if the glitching is occurring with a reasonably stable strong signal / quality indication then that unfortunately is in most cases totally outwith your control, as it can be caused by a variety of external reasons.
I do feel though that the massive increase in transmitter power after switchover could well rectify your present difficulties, that is even allowing for the fact that reception predictions are far from being an exact science!
(All said acknowledging Dave Griffiths posting re Ch67 reception as being problematic in the Scarborough area)
| link to this comment |
Sunday 17 April 2011 8:28PM
obsidian_eclipse - Purely for information purposes, in the Stamford West area (notorious for bad reception) I can receive Ch31 via an amplified log periodic aerial on three separate devices, namely a Panasonic TX32G20B TV and two PVR's, a Humax 9200T and a Hitachi 162.
I will say that when the channel changed from 23 to 31 the signal level immediately dropped from a near 10/10 S&Q to an erratic 80% strength and a downwards varying 60% in quality with this occasionally diving to zero, these findings being similar in ratio across the three devices used, one of them (the Humax) being fed from a separate amplified log albeit still being directed towards Waltham.
As a matter of interest on a portable multi-standard LCD I use for external test purposes the data received on Ch31 shows the Video PID-0513, and the Audio PID-0651.