All posts by jb38
Below are all of jb38's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
cake: Just out of curiosity, if you go into the "manual tuning" option on whatever you are using and enter Ch50 but NOT followed by pressing search or scan, then what level of signal strength / quality of do you see being indicated?
If zero then try the same test again but on this occasion entering Ch49.
| link to this comment |
Sarah C: That error code simply indicates that the box is unable to receive the default transponder, this providing the EPG programme guide.
Have you tried swapping the two inputs from the dish over? because "if" the LNB1 input has developed a fault, e.g: by water having entered the dishes LNB "F" connector, then the action of swapping them over will return normal viewing, but though with the faulty input now being on LNB2 will stop you recording, as LNB2 is mainly used for that purpose.
| link to this comment |
paul: Not quite sure what you mean by Freeview being from the same dish? as Freeview is terrestrial based service received via a normal aerial.
However, if you have a Sky+ HD box as well as having another Sky box then you obviously have a quad block fitted to your dish, but though if neither box is receiving a signal then this has to be caused by the dish having been knocked slightly out of alignment no matter what it might look like, because even the most experienced of dish installers would not be able to tell if the dish was bang on alignment or not, as you are only only referring to minute differences.
On the normal Sky box, if you press on "services - 4 - 6" then do you see anything being indicated?
| link to this comment |
Jan: Although an engineering notice was posted to the effect that from the 15th the Selkirk transmitter was liable to interruption, however any breaks that do take place are usually only in the order of 15 minutes or so and so your problem "might" possibly be coincidental.
The other point being, that a proper assessment of your situation with regards to the signal strength expected at your location cannot be made by anyone without knowledge of the post code involved, or at least one from somewhere nearby e.g: a shop or post office, as only then can the necessary info regarding the transmitter be accessed.
Have you made any local enquiries (neighbour etc) for the purpose of ascertaining if the problem is also being experienced by others?
| link to this comment |
DebbieK: Thanks for the report on your findings, although just for clarification, were these levels obtained using the procedure mentioned to cake?
The other point being, (and purely for the notebook!) that to put these indications into perspective it would also have been of assistance if you had given a clue as to your location, as the distance / angle you are from the mast could have been cross referenced against the whereabouts of others who might also be having difficulties, this giving an idea if the problem is confined to only being experienced by those who reside at a certain angle from the mast.
| link to this comment |
thomas rance: As Oxfords ITV1 / Ch4 / Ch5 are all on multiplex Ch60 then you should carry out a signal strength / quality test on ITV1 just to ensure that your TV or box has not accidentally picked up Crystal Palaces ITV1 on mux Ch26 during an auto-tune, the mux channel involved usually always being given along with the level indications.
| link to this comment |
DebbieK: Thanks once again for the info! this having been noted for reference purpose, Winter Hill being indicated at 8 miles away from you on a bearing of 344 degrees and which according to the natural terrain indicator should be reasonably line-of-sight from the transmitter but with the exclusion of any possible man made structures being in the way, as the indications given only refer to the bare land devoid of forest's or anything man made, these being completely excluded from the indications.
That said though, I did notice a number of the aerials in your area having been positioned on exceptionally long mast poles, something which contrary to the indications referred to suggest that your particular part of the area can suffer from reception difficulties caused locally by the signal being obstructed, and in these types of areas variations in the reception level between each of the muxes tend to be common place even when in areas located as close as (or even less) than 8 miles away from a 100kw transmitter, this seemingly the case I was wondering if you as yet have made any "local" enquiries to determine as to whether or not the Ch50 / Ch49 problem is affecting anyone else? albeit I suspect that it will be.
Another point that always has to remembered being, that even although a person might well have had good reception prior to the recently made changes its not necessarily the case that the signal level received was particularly strong, although albeit with it possibly being stable hence why no problems were noticed even although it "might" have been hovering at just above the lower threshold cut off level of the receiver, but which has now fallen well under, the reason for possibly being a combination of the aerial now being much less efficient due to the new channels in use being at lowest end of the aerials operating range "if" a C/D group aerial is being used (identified by a green end blanking plug) and with this deficiency in the aerial being coupled to level changes caused by propagational variations that exist between frequencies.
| link to this comment |
ian from notts: Yes, but with the filter having to be fitted in line between the aerial and the mast head amplifier.
| link to this comment |
Friday 19 April 2013 12:04AM
Griffojack: Excellent news!! and indeed very timely as I only returned from work a short time ago and was in the process of typing out a reply to what you had reported, your latest update having saved me the trouble!
It just goes to show that in some cases a piece of "on site" detective work can pay off.
Thanks again for the update.