A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

trouble with ariael



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 13th 06, 08:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,408
Default trouble with ariael


"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...
"Slitheen" wrote:

Don't necessarily want to contradict the knowledgeable types who frequent
these boards, about never using setside boosters etc, but in my *own*
experience they've never been anything but beneficial in situations like
yours. ...


If a set-back booster *does* improve things significantly for you, then
there's a fault with your TV's receiver. It's the signal-to-noise ratio
rather than the gain that counts in that situation, and the front-end of
the TV's receiver should already be as good at picking the signal out of
the noise as is possible for competitively-priced electronics.


This is, of course, correct. I wish I had a pound for all the times I've
arrived at a 'poor reception from communal system ' job to find a 'booster'
either in use (but not helping) or more often sitting on the floor behind
the telly, discarded after being tried. However, I occasionally find people
using set back boosters and getting a slight improvement. And a slight
improvement can be make or break with DTT.

Where the situation with the aerial system is that the aerial signal is poor
and enters a chain of amplification at a low level, the c/n ratio would
appear to be firmly set and not improveable. Sometimes this is the case and
yet the levels at the outlet are acceptable, especially where some idiot has
increased the system gain without testing the aerial. In this situation I
have seen setback amps make things much worse because of cross-mod.

I fairly common problem we have is that we go to a system and improve the
aerial and head end, this lifting signal levels throughout the system,
sometimes by 15dB. The next day three or four out of maybe 60 complain that
their reception is worse. Guess what we find behind the complainants'
tellys?

Bill

PS apart from cat **** -- another common problem. Never work in shorts with
cuts on your legs.


Ads
  #22  
Old December 13th 06, 08:32 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,016
Default trouble with ariael

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

[Snip]

I fairly common problem we have is that we go to a system and improve the
aerial and head end, this lifting signal levels throughout the system,
sometimes by 15dB. The next day three or four out of maybe 60 complain
that their reception is worse. Guess what we find behind the
complainants' tellys?


In the early days of uhf, some relays were brought on with their power
deliberately 6dB or even 10dB down to stop people using the station out of
its design area. This was because a further transmitter was planned which
would limit the area because of co-channel interference. When the new
station came on the relay's power would be increased. At one site (very
close to home) the RIS complained the new main station was causing cci,
whereas it was simple overloading caused by the relay having another 10dB
on its output.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

  #23  
Old December 13th 06, 09:22 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Crosland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 524
Default Trouble with AERIAL

Prometheus wrote:
In article ,
Peter Crosland writes
Doctor D wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Max Demian wrote:
"Stephen" wrote in message
...
The correct spelling is AERIAL.

Or antenna if you're merkin.

Now I am really struggling to get, as they say, my head round this.
According to my dictionary a merkin is a pubic wig and I wonder why
such a device would need an aerial!

http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxmerkin.html

Then "merkin" was coined afresh to mean "an American", because it
sounds a bit like the half-swallowed pronunciation of "American" by
some Americans, particularly President Lyndon Johnson; and the fact
that it had a "naughty" meaning didn't hurt.


Never heard of irony?


You mean iron like, as a 'merkin might say.


That would be about their level!

Peter Crosland


  #24  
Old December 13th 06, 10:09 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Slitheen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default trouble with ariael


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Slitheen" wrote in message
...
I reckon this depends on your original signal condition/strength
though.....as I can only assume the often touted line about boosters only
serving to increase noise *must* be true in certain
situations...otherwise people wouldn't keep on saying this. Like I say
though, in my experience, setside boosters do what they say on the
box....and my own experience is all I have to give.


And you haven't much of it really have you?


Well clearly, oh knowledgeable one, when you work in the industry you work
in, and curiously spend your non working hours debating the finer points of
television reception with like minded individuals, as you clearly do, then
yes.....big whoop, you will know more than a layman such as I. What are you
looking for? A Blue Peter ****ing badge?

Arrogant prick!


  #25  
Old December 13th 06, 10:12 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Slitheen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default trouble with ariael


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

using set back boosters and getting a slight improvement. And a slight
improvement can be make or break with DTT.


The penny drops. That's my point, they have a certain value, in some
situations. With one of my set-ups, it *is* the difference between no
Freeview and perfect, zero interference Freeview.


  #26  
Old December 14th 06, 01:31 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,408
Default trouble with ariael


"Slitheen" wrote in message
...
..and my own experience is all I have to give.

And you haven't much of it really have you?


Well clearly, oh knowledgeable one, when you work in the industry you work
in, and curiously spend your non working hours debating the finer points
of television reception with like minded individuals, as you clearly do,
then yes.....big whoop, you will know more than a layman such as I. What
are you looking for? A Blue Peter ****ing badge?

Arrogant prick!


Well, that's lowered the tone.

All through this discussion you have had the attitude that you know best,
even when we've gently tried to modify your views with a bit of real
knowledge. That really is arrogance. It's also pig headedness.

What I've displayed is not arrogance; it's irritation.

Bill


  #27  
Old December 14th 06, 01:36 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,408
Default trouble with ariael


"Slitheen" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

using set back boosters and getting a slight improvement. And a slight
improvement can be make or break with DTT.


The penny drops. That's my point, they have a certain value, in some
situations. With one of my set-ups, it *is* the difference between no
Freeview and perfect, zero interference Freeview.


Yes, but you shouldn't generalise, as you have done, from your experience,
which is very limited.

In cases where a set back amp does improve digital reception, it can only
improve it to the point where the signal to noise ratio is only barely
adequate. This means that reception will inevitably be unreliable. Better
than nothing, yes, but not a basis for a permanent installation. OK for you
rank amateurs, but not for us.

Bill


  #28  
Old December 14th 06, 10:22 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul D.Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,070
Default Trouble with AERIAL

Never heard of irony?

You mean iron like, as a 'merkin might say.


That would be about their level!

Peter Crosland


Just leave a little pause at the end of your sentence and then say "not" in
a very "Bill & Ted's Adventure" sort of way then all but the slowest realise
what you're on about.

Paul DS


  #29  
Old December 16th 06, 07:21 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Phil Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default trouble with ariael

Prometheus wrote:

In article , Max Demian
writes
"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , malcolm
writes
My ariel is up on roof apex facing emley moor.

Not the best place for a motorbike; neither would a Shakespearean
character be best pleased.


The one half way up the front of BBC Broadcasting House doesn't seem to
mind.


I had forgotten that one.


The rather well endowed one?

"Artistic commissions adorn the building, notably Eric Gill's statue
over the front entrance of Prospero and Ariel (from Shakespeare's The
Tempest). The naked Ariel provoked comments about the size of his
genitalia, prompting a question in the House of Commons on the offence
to public morals caused by the image. It is said Gill was ordered to
adjust Ariel's dimensions to more decent proportions."

His bits are just off the edge of this pic
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/red/blue_pics/2006/07/21/EricGillworkingonProsperonAriel372.jpg

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
  #30  
Old December 16th 06, 08:46 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andereida
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default trouble with ariael

Phil Cook wrote:
Prometheus wrote:

In article , Max Demian
writes
"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , malcolm
writes
My ariel is up on roof apex facing emley moor.
Not the best place for a motorbike; neither would a Shakespearean
character be best pleased.
The one half way up the front of BBC Broadcasting House doesn't seem to
mind.

I had forgotten that one.


The rather well endowed one?

"Artistic commissions adorn the building, notably Eric Gill's statue
over the front entrance of Prospero and Ariel (from Shakespeare's The
Tempest). The naked Ariel provoked comments about the size of his
genitalia, prompting a question in the House of Commons on the offence
to public morals caused by the image. It is said Gill was ordered to
adjust Ariel's dimensions to more decent proportions."

His bits are just off the edge of this pic
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/red/blue_pics/2006/07/21/EricGillworkingonProsperonAriel372.jpg

Well, well - you learn something new every day!

For the best part of 70 years I have always imagined Ariel as being
female - or at the very least androgynous. I seem to remember that in
Shakespeare's 'dramatis personae' for the play Ariel is listed with the
female characters. But I suppose Gill knew what he was about.

Andereida
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.