I'm currently (last few days) having very poor reception on my iplayer
(lastest software)on ITV channels from RIDGE HILL transmitter - BBC stuff
is fine. Could this be weather related at all? Any other possible pointers?

Graham

"Geoff Lane" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 19:27:42 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Dean"
wrote:

I'm currently (last few days) having very poor reception on my iplayer
(lastest software)on ITV channels from RIDGE HILL transmitter - BBC stuff
is fine. Could this be weather related at all? Any other possible
pointers?

When you say poor reception what do you mean, digital tends to be OK
or no picture, there is no middle ground except perhaps a wee bit of
blocky image.

Geoff,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Yes - blocky image and sound break up. Very blocky image... ;-)
I checked on the channel strength and quality:
Channel 57 Strength 37% Quality 42%-53%... (this carries ITV channels, E4)
Channel 53 Strength 33% Quality 64%-70%....(this carries BBC channels)
Couple of other channels with good strength and quality

It's channel 57 I'm having the trouble on. Interesting thing is that it
seems to get better late
at night or early in morning and it's been fine until lately...


Good box the I-Player.

I agree - the picture is very very good (when the channel's ok... ;-)) and
now has 7-day epg.

Graham

signal quality is the crucial indicator (it shows how much error
correction is going on), below a certain point your receeiver can't
decode any more.

bbc channels use 16 qam, itv ones use 64 qam (hence are harder to
receive!), and day/night conditions might make a difference to marginal
reception, in which case aerial improvement is needed.

See my guide at
http://www.satellites.co.uk/php-bin/...ad.php?t=43646 .

"spiney" wrote in message
oups.com...
signal quality is the crucial indicator (it shows how much error
correction is going on), below a certain point your receeiver can't
decode any more.

bbc channels use 16 qam, itv ones use 64 qam (hence are harder to
receive!), and day/night conditions might make a difference to marginal
reception, in which case aerial improvement is needed.

See my guide at
http://www.satellites.co.uk/php-bin/...ad.php?t=43646 .


Spiney - cheers, thanks for the info and pointer to your site.
Why is 64 qam harder than 16 qam harder to receive? More processing
required at the STB end?

Graham

"Geoff Lane" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 08:26:16 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Dean"
wrote:


When you say poor reception what do you mean, digital tends to be OK
or no picture, there is no middle ground except perhaps a wee bit of
blocky image.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

It's channel 57 I'm having the trouble on. Interesting thing is that it
seems to get better late
at night or early in morning and it's been fine until lately...

Spiney refers to the www.wolfbane.com site, this is a good start as it
will give you an idea of your aerial direction, you can then have a
look to see if it is pointing the same way as the others in the area.

SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) is apparently important and I believe
should be around 26 or more; low readings I think can be down to poor
connections or cable.

Geoff Lane


low readings I think can be down to poor
connections or cable.

I think you may just have nailed it there... after fiddling with connectors
it got an awful lot better....!
Best look at those properly methinks!

Graham

"Alan Pemberton" wrote in message
ve.co.uk.invalid...
Graham Dean wrote:

Spiney - cheers, thanks for the info and pointer to your site.
Why is 64 qam harder than 16 qam harder to receive? More processing
required at the STB end?

Same reason a treble twenty is harder to hit than a one.


Ah, got it - just had a look at a constellation diagram and it all makes
sense... esp when I've got marginal
reception...

Graham

"Graham Dean" wrote in message

I think you may just have nailed it there... after fiddling with
connectors it got an awful lot better....!
Best look at those properly methinks!

*****

That's great if you've cracked it. But don't overlook the possibility,
especially if it's a problem which has arisen recently, of the
re-engineering work on the ITV channels which brought us back ITV
News. There seems to be little doubt that it also introduced problems
(loss of EPG, break-up etc.) which may not yet be fully resolved.

André Coutanche

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
"Graham Dean" wrote in message

I think you may just have nailed it there... after fiddling with
connectors it got an awful lot better....!
Best look at those properly methinks!

*****

That's great if you've cracked it. But don't overlook the possibility,
especially if it's a problem which has arisen recently, of the
re-engineering work on the ITV channels which brought us back ITV
News. There seems to be little doubt that it also introduced problems
(loss of EPG, break-up etc.) which may not yet be fully resolved.

André Coutanche


Hi André,

Back to having problems this morning - so you may well be right! I think
it's because I've got marginal
reception that things are brittle... Fine first thing this morning - but
slowly getting worse (weather?)
The interesting thing about channel 57 (the one I receive ITV channels on)
is that the BER is by far
the worse - 2.5-3 (1E-4) at the moment - other channels are in the region of
0-002 (even including
another 64 qam one).

It is a problem that has arisen recently - I would say within last 10 days,
can't be sure exactly as I'm
only now noticing it as I'm trying to watch the Tour de France on ITV2..

Ho hum!

Graham

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:16:18 +0100,
lid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:

Graham Dean wrote:

Spiney - cheers, thanks for the info and pointer to your site.
Why is 64 qam harder than 16 qam harder to receive? More processing
required at the STB end?

Same reason a treble twenty is harder to hit than a one.

One hundred and E I G H T Y.

Geoff Lane