Any TV experts here?

[~BD~]

Any TV experts here?

I'll post my question if there are!

This TV: Sony Bravia KDL 32EX503U

[Arfa Daily]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:j8n70p$flg$2...@dont-email.me...

> Any TV experts here?
>
> I'll post my question if there are!
>
> This TV: Sony Bravia KDL 32EX503U

There isn't really any such thing, these days. You take a flatscreen TV, and
you do what you can with it, based on experience. A lot of the time, its a
case of going down the manufacturers' preferred route, of board swapping.
That said, power supplies and backlight inverters are often repairable. So
what's the problem ? Good possibility that someone on here might know the
answer, or be able to point you in the right direction. If you never
actually ask the question, you'll never actually know ...

Arfa

[bill]

I got quite good on repairing Philco 16 inch, black,and white, TVs back
in 1950s

Bill K7NOM

[~BD~]

~BD~ wrote:

> This TV: Sony Bravia KDL 32EX503U

My thanks to 'Arfa Daily' and 'bill' for comments.

Location: East Devon, England

The TV in question is only 10 months old and apart from the odd
occurrence of digital picture break-up, has worked perfectly until last
Saturday evening when the digital picture broke up into many pieces on
the ITV channels yet remained satisfactory on those from the BBC. My
wife retuned in accordance with the instruction, both auto and manually
but the fault remained.

Yesterday, I reset the TV to factory conditions. I unplugged it from
mains power. I retuned without an aerial input (to clear channel
settings, I'd read on-line) then retuned again.

I now get a perfect picture on all BBC 'normal' channels. I get a
first-class High Definition (HD) picture on relevant channels for both
BBC *and* the commercial TV channels (ITV).

However, I'm still not receiving ITV 'normal' channels at all.

(Another TV we have upstairs *does* work on normal ITV channels!)

There's always a reason for everything. Any idea what might be the cause?

--
Dave - I'll contact our Sony helpline later today and see if they can
help explain matters. I'll report back what transpires.

[Phil Allison]

"~BD~"

> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> This TV: Sony Bravia KDL 32EX503U
>
> My thanks to 'Arfa Daily' and 'bill' for comments.
>
> Location: East Devon, England
>
> The TV in question is only 10 months old and apart from the odd occurrence
> of digital picture break-up, has worked perfectly until last Saturday
> evening when the digital picture broke up into many pieces on the ITV
> channels yet remained satisfactory on those from the BBC. My wife retuned
> in accordance with the instruction, both auto and manually but the fault
> remained.
>
> Yesterday, I reset the TV to factory conditions. I unplugged it from mains
> power. I retuned without an aerial input (to clear channel settings, I'd
> read on-line) then retuned again.
>
> I now get a perfect picture on all BBC 'normal' channels. I get a
> first-class High Definition (HD) picture on relevant channels for both BBC
> *and* the commercial TV channels (ITV).
>
> However, I'm still not receiving ITV 'normal' channels at all.
>
> (Another TV we have upstairs *does* work on normal ITV channels!)
>
> There's always a reason for everything. Any idea what might be the cause?

** Hardly possible for it to be a fault with the set at all.

Signal strength at the set is low on the ITV channels - hence the breaking
up etc.

Suspect an antenna or cabling problem or possibly one at the transmitter.

That another set in the house works OK is not relevant until you swap the
locations of the sets.

Please describe you antenna and cabling set up - is there a
splitter/booster anywhere ?



... Phil

[~BD~]

Hi Phil

Thanks for your response.

The antenna is probably 3ft long - a square section, with 8 X's at equal
intervals. At the back end there is a < shape with 3 horizontal bars on
each arm. (I got my camera to take a picture and found it's battery flat
- now on charge!). I know it's more than 8 years old cause it was up
there on the chimney stack when I bought my house!

The cable from the aerial goes into the loft where it plugs into a
booster/splitter with four output cables. I did switch a couple around
last evening to no effect. Maybe I'll have another try later today.

I fear I may have to get in a professional if there is no possibility
that it's the TV itself. What I don't understand is why we should be
getting a perfect HD picture but no 'normal' ITV channels.

Dave

[Geo]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:32:41 +0000, ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
wrote:

>
>I now get a perfect picture on all BBC 'normal' channels. I get a
>first-class High Definition (HD) picture on relevant channels for both
>BBC *and* the commercial TV channels (ITV).
>
>However, I'm still not receiving ITV 'normal' channels at all.
>
>(Another TV we have upstairs *does* work on normal ITV channels!)
>

They have probably been upping the TX power levels after DSO and your
Sony has picked up some channels from the wrong transmitter - you
might find the correct channels stored elsewhere (800+?).
Suggest you ask in uk.tech.digital-tv giving town or approx postcode
and which transmitter your aerial is pointed at.
One way of getting round this is to do a manual scan on the correct
frequencies only - or watch the auto-scan and plug/unplug the aerial
at the right point.

[~BD~]

Hello Geo

FYI http://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=ST222014

Details of Stockland Hill Tx ^^^^^ but it's mostly gobbledegook to me!

Today it's dry with blue sky and sunshine - and the ITV channels are
working again now!!! <rolls eyes>

Thanks for mentioning uk.tech.digital-tv - I'll go and visit! :-)

Dave

[spamtrap1888]

On Nov 1, 2:43 am, ~BD~ <~...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> Geo wrote:

> > On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:32:41 +0000, ~BD~<~...@nomail.afraid.org>

> > wrote:
>
> >> I now get a perfect picture on all BBC 'normal' channels. I get a
> >> first-class High Definition (HD) picture on relevant channels for both
> >> BBC *and* the commercial TV channels (ITV).
>
> >> However, I'm still not receiving ITV 'normal' channels at all.
>
> >> (Another TV we have upstairs *does* work on normal ITV channels!)
>
> > They have probably been upping the TX power levels after DSO and your
> > Sony has picked up some channels from the wrong transmitter - you
> > might find the correct channels stored elsewhere (800+?).
> > Suggest you ask in uk.tech.digital-tv giving town or approx postcode
> > and which transmitter your aerial is pointed at.
> > One way of getting round this is to do a manual scan on the correct
> > frequencies only - or watch the auto-scan and plug/unplug the aerial
> > at the right point.
>
> Hello Geo
>

> FYIhttp://www.ukfree.tv/txdetail.php?a=ST222014

>
> Details of Stockland Hill Tx ^^^^^ but it's mostly gobbledegook to me!

BBC and ITV HD are transmitted at high power, the other ITVs are
transmitted at low power. Thus an aerial-cable setup that is
inadequate for the other ITVs could perform acceptably for BBC and ITV
HD.

>
> Today it's dry with blue sky and sunshine - and the ITV channels are
> working again now!!! <rolls eyes>

Was it storming when ITV was pixelated? Look to see if there are any
tree branches in line with the aerial and Stockland Hill. You could
try reaiming your aerial, or moving it to a different spot on your
roof. As old as it sounds, replacement might be a better solution.

[Baron]

Geo Inscribed thus:

Yes, that happened to me ! Where I am there are three transmitters and
it was the unwanted ones that were stronger for a short time. 48 hours
later and another re-tune, all was well.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

[Arfa Daily]

"Baron" <ba...@linuxmaniac.net> wrote in message
news:j8phua$ehl$3...@dont-email.me...

All of the advice and thoughts given, are good and valid. UK digital TV is
in a real state of flux at the moment, with transmitter power levels being
upped and downed all the time whilst they sort out all of the multiplex
locations and powers, since the final demise of analogue. The multiplexes
and their contents have changed about three times recently in my ITV region.
The Panasonic TV in the lounge has managed to hang in there ok, but the
no-name in the kitchen, has struggled. Same antenna system, trunked
distribution, slightly higher signal levels in the lounge.

Going back to your antenna, if it really is 8 years old, it may not actually
be a wideband type suitable for digital. The fact that it has "X" type
directors and a ">" reflector, only tells us that it is an 'anti-ghost'
type, and whilst many wideband antennas that are around now are also of this
design, there were certainly 'chanel-ised' versions made by Jaybeam, I
think, cut for particular groups of channels. Depending on how good your
signal is in the first place, sometimes you can get away with the reduced
response outside of the section of band that it is cut for, but it may be
the case that the multiplex that your ITV is in, has moved to the other end
of the band, and the antenna is only *just* adequate to receive enough
signal at the current transmitter power, and that if there are any adverse
weather conditions or other obstructions, poor reception results.

Remember that digital signals do not die gracefully like analogue ones did,
where you would have noticed the 'grain' on the picture increasing as the
signal level fell. With digital signals, it is the 'cliff' effect, where the
decoding and error correction process hangs in there until a given point,
after which, bit errors are so great that the original signal can no longer
be recovered, at which point, the decoder gives up, and just blanks the
screen. If the problem persists, you will have to get a professional rigger
out, who will be able to see immediately if the existing antenna is a
wideband type or not. If you go down this route, see if you can find a
long-established firm, or if you can find an independent dealer locally, pop
in and ask them who they use. There are a lot of cowboys and rip-off
merchants around in the TV antenna business at the moment, taking advantage
of the state of flux of the digital services, and people's lack of knowledge
and understanding in that regard ...

Arfa

[Mark Zacharias]

"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message

news:j8o3qa$5k9$1...@dont-email.me...

In the U.S. there is a one-year warranty on new Sonys and my advice would be
to get it to a Sony warranty servicer.

Don't know what sort of warranty they have in your country.

Mark Z.

[Phil Allison]

"Mark Zacharias"

>
> In the U.S. there is a one-year warranty on new Sonys and my advice would
> be to get it to a Sony warranty servicer.

** Only goes to prove what a TOTAL FUCKING IDIOT

you are and have always been.




.... Phil

[~BD~]

I now understand! Thanks for that.

>> Today it's dry with blue sky and sunshine - and the ITV channels are
>> working again now!!!<rolls eyes>
>
> Was it storming when ITV was pixelated? Look to see if there are any
> tree branches in line with the aerial and Stockland Hill. You could
> try reaiming your aerial, or moving it to a different spot on your
> roof. As old as it sounds, replacement might be a better solution.

Not storming, but damp and drizzly! It's rather like that today too, but
ITV *is working now*! Grrr! There's no tree branches nearby, I'd not be
surprised if there were some shenanigans going on at the transmitter!!!

We've been digital for around two years now with very few occasions of
picture break-up. I think I'll sit things out for a few days and see
what happens.

Thanks again for your views!

[~BD~]

I really appreciate your comprehensive comments, Arfa. Thank you. :-)

FYI, here's a piccie of the antenna: http://i44.tinypic.com/oumsch.jpg

My eyes were playing tricks on me - it's a round section bar and 9, not
8, X's!

I did speak to Sony's help line (a girl in Cairo, Egypt!!!). Her view
was that it is definitely *not* a TV problem, but one of signal strength.

Many thanks for your warning about cowboys and rip-off merchants. I'll
be careful to select wisely if/when I need professional help.

Cheers!

Dave

[Dave Platt]

In article <j8rpcb$dk5$1...@dont-email.me>, ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>FYI, here's a piccie of the antenna: http://i44.tinypic.com/oumsch.jpg
>
>My eyes were playing tricks on me - it's a round section bar and 9, not
>8, X's!

What I see here, looks like a Yagi-like hybrid... a corner reflector,
a bowtie-type driven element, and a bunch of bowtie-type director
elements. I'm not sure what the flat non-bowtie element right in
front of the driven element is.

The bowtie configuration (for the DE and directors) would give a
somewhat broader bandwidth than a single-wire dipole element would.

Nevertheless, this looks as if it's probably intended to be rather
narrow-band (single-wire-element Yagi antennas have a bandwidth of
only a few perent) and quite directional... having a narrow half-power
beamwidth, as a way of increasing the forward gain. I'd interpret it
as a "deep fringe" sort of antenna, intended to be used in locations
quite some distance from the transmitter(s).

The directionality of this design could either work for you or against
you. If it's aimed directly towards the best propagation path to the
transmitters, it would maximize your signal strength and probably help
keep the multipath reflections down (multipath causes ghosting on
analog signals, and degrades digital signals in a way less obvious).

On the other hand, if you've got two or more transmitter sites you
want to receive from, in somewhat different directions, then a highly
directional antenna could cause you problems... aiming the antenna for
best signal on some stations could put the other tranmsitter in a
non-favored direction. You could lose signal strength, and have
increased sensitivity to multipath.

Although it's a pain in the tail to install and manage, you may find
that it'd be beneficial to have a remote-controlled antenna rotator,
so that you can re-aim the antenna depending on which station(s) you
are trying to receive.

Here in the U.S., one tends to see log-periodic designs rather than
Yagi-type - broader bandwidth, but less gain and a poorer
front-to-back ratio. This may be less true in the future, I suppose,
as fewer and fewer stations are operating in the old VHF spectrum -
most of the digital stations are now in the UHF range, and less
antenna bandwidth is required.

[The lower antenna looks like a folded-dipole driven element, with a
single parasitic - probably a reflector? It isn't wired to the same
feed-line, is it?]

--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[~BD~]

Dave Platt wrote:
> [The lower antenna looks like a folded-dipole driven element, with a
> single parasitic - probably a reflector? It isn't wired to the same
> feed-line, is it?]

No! That one is for radio reception - not currently connected!

Thanks for your comments, Dave.

[spamtrap1888]

On Nov 2, 10:36 am, dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote:

> In article <j8rpcb$dk...@dont-email.me>, ~BD~  <~...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >FYI, here's a piccie of the antenna:http://i44.tinypic.com/oumsch.jpg
>
> >My eyes were playing tricks on me - it's a round section bar and 9, not
> >8, X's!
>
> What I see here, looks like a Yagi-like hybrid... a corner reflector,
> a bowtie-type driven element, and a bunch of bowtie-type director
> elements.  I'm not sure what the flat non-bowtie element right in
> front of the driven element is.
>
> The bowtie configuration (for the DE and directors) would give a
> somewhat broader bandwidth than a single-wire dipole element would.
>
> Nevertheless, this looks as if it's probably intended to be rather
> narrow-band (single-wire-element Yagi antennas have a bandwidth of
> only a few perent) and quite directional... having a narrow half-power
> beamwidth, as a way of increasing the forward gain.  I'd interpret it
> as a "deep fringe" sort of antenna, intended to be used in locations
> quite some distance from the transmitter(s).

Looking at the OP's "Freeview" link, the transmitters cover a narrow
range of UK channels, from Channel 22 to 29, or roughly US channels 15
to 25.

>
> The directionality of this design could either work for you or against
> you.  If it's aimed directly towards the best propagation path to the
> transmitters, it would maximize your signal strength and probably help
> keep the multipath reflections down (multipath causes ghosting on
> analog signals, and degrades digital signals in a way less obvious).
>
> On the other hand, if you've got two or more transmitter sites you
> want to receive from, in somewhat different directions, then a highly
> directional antenna could cause you problems... aiming the antenna for
> best signal on some stations could put the other tranmsitter in a
> non-favored direction.  You could lose signal strength, and have
> increased sensitivity to multipath.

His local transmitters are all on the same tower on Stockland Hill in
Devon, so once he peaks the signal, that should do it, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockland_Hill_transmitting_station

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

>> Arfa
>
> I really appreciate your comprehensive comments, Arfa. Thank you. :-)
>
> FYI, here's a piccie of the antenna: http://i44.tinypic.com/oumsch.jpg
>
> My eyes were playing tricks on me - it's a round section bar and 9, not 8,
> X's!
>
> I did speak to Sony's help line (a girl in Cairo, Egypt!!!). Her view was
> that it is definitely *not* a TV problem, but one of signal strength.
>
> Many thanks for your warning about cowboys and rip-off merchants. I'll be
> careful to select wisely if/when I need professional help.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Dave
>

Looking at the picture, I think that you can be 90% sure that what you have
is a narrow bandwidth antenna from the analogue days. It may or may not
ultimately prove satisfactory for digital. If you remember back to the early
days of the 'digital TV revolution' with the TV ads featuring Johnny Vegas
and Monkey, the basic message was that you could just glue your shiny new
digital TV or STB to your existing antenna, and immediately enjoy all of the
benefits of the digital system. Well, yes and no. As far as I know, it was
always the intention that when everything was finally settled, the
multiplexes for each TV region, would largely match the blocks of band
originally used for analogue TV in those areas - hence an existing antenna
should work ok. However, it never really worked out that way in the interim.
To avoid interference problems to and from existing analogue services,
whilst these were phased out over whatever time period it was - around three
years I think it's been - multiplexes belonging to a geographical area, were
shoved all over the whole UHF band, which is about 400 MHz wide. So you
could easily finish up with one multiplex at the bottom of the band, and
another for your area, right at the top. That's the way it was where I am.
Also, whilst best efforts were made to co-locate digital transmitters on the
same sites as the existing analogue ones, that didn't always work out
either, so you could finish up with the analogue service, and the digital
service broadly in the same direction, but possibly several degrees apart.
If you have a highly directional existing analogue antenna, that could make
it quite a bit 'off-beam' for the digital service. On top of all of this,
they have had to adjust transmitter powers up and down as well, because of
mutual interference problems, and multiplex contents have also been shuffled
around. It is only in the last few months, as the analogue transmitters have
gasped their last, that there has finally been some efforts to stabilize the
whole situation, with finalised transmitter powers and multiplex locations
within the band. There has also been some shenanigans regarding what parts
of the UHF band are left available for TV use, after revised chunks are sold
off to the cell-phone operators. This has caused some problems with space
that the broadcasters thought was already allocated to allow broadcast of HD
within the Freeview terrestrial service, and has resulted in a rethink as to
how this is now being accomplished.

All in all, if you can live with the current situation for a little while
longer, you might find that it all settles down enough to give you perfectly
acceptable results, using that antenna. Of course, the exact reverse might
also turn out to be true ...

It would probably ultimately be worth getting the antenna replaced with an
up-to-date one, as you would then be guaranteed good reception under all
weather conditions, but as I said before, choose your rigger with care. Have
a look at the size and type of antennas that have appeared newly on your
street. If they are not massive and very complicated looking, then you
should be able to get a new one rigged on your house, again assuming that
it's not a 'difficult' installation, complete with new cable, which will be
very much better performing than the current cable you have, for less than
100 quid. A reputable rigger will not try to sell you anything different
than anyone else in the street has, and will not try to persuade you to have
a 'booster'. There have been a number of cases of disreputable riggers
cashing in on this whole affair, and the public's lack of understanding of
it, and plus 70 quid for a five quid un-needed Chinese amplifier, is one of
the rip-off methods that has been used by them.

Arfa

[~BD~]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me, Arfa - I am certainly a
much wiser man now. It's obviously a very complicated business but you
seem to know your stuff!

> All in all, if you can live with the current situation for a little
> while longer, you might find that it all settles down enough to give you
> perfectly acceptable results, using that antenna. Of course, the exact
> reverse might also turn out to be true ...

Hahaha! Indeed it might well be the reverse! I'm not a great fan of TV
nowadays, but when I DO want to sit down and watch something, I do want
it to work! I'll let things run as they are for a short while longer.

> It would probably ultimately be worth getting the antenna replaced with
> an up-to-date one, as you would then be guaranteed good reception under
> all weather conditions, but as I said before, choose your rigger with
> care. Have a look at the size and type of antennas that have appeared
> newly on your street. If they are not massive and very complicated
> looking, then you should be able to get a new one rigged on your house,
> again assuming that it's not a 'difficult' installation, complete with
> new cable, which will be very much better performing than the current
> cable you have, for less than 100 quid. A reputable rigger will not try
> to sell you anything different than anyone else in the street has, and
> will not try to persuade you to have a 'booster'. There have been a
> number of cases of disreputable riggers cashing in on this whole affair,
> and the public's lack of understanding of it, and plus 70 quid for a
> five quid un-needed Chinese amplifier, is one of the rip-off methods
> that has been used by them.

All your comments are most helpful, Thank you so much for taking the
time and trouble to advise me.

Have a great day! :-)

Thanks again, 'Arfa' (great nym!)

[b]

On this note, this site made me crease up with laughter.
scroll down to see some hilarous aerial bodges!
http://www.aerialsandtv.com/cowboyslocker.html#SelfRightingAerial

regards,
B.

[~BD~]

Great stuff! :-)

Thanks for posting!

[Arfa Daily]

<snip>

>
> All your comments are most helpful, Thank you so much for taking the time
> and trouble to advise me.
>
> Have a great day! :-)
>
> Thanks again, 'Arfa' (great nym!)

Interestingly, a friend rang me this morning, to say that he was at the
house of a work colleague, and he was having a similar problem to you with a
Sammy 32". It actually kept reporting "Weak Signal" on the screen,
apparently.

I suggested that he did a complete 'new install' retune, to see what
happened. he rang back a couple of hours later to say that it was all now
sorted and working fine with quote "hundreds of channels". The only problem
that he had was that he reckons that he could not find a new install option
in the tuning sub-menu, so he did a bit of thinking outside the box, and
selected a 'wrong' country setting, and then asked it to do a retune. This,
he claims, caused it to find nothing, which cleared out the tuning memory,
so that when he set it back to "UK" and repeated the procedure, it found all
the correct multiplexes for where the antenna was pointing.

I was a bit sceptical about there not being a total reset option buried
somewhere 3 or 4 menu levels down, but whatever. His method did the job,
even if it was a bit around the houses ...

OK on the nic. It is of course my tongue-in-cheek tribute to the great
George Cole, and one of my favourite characters of his, Arthur Daley

Arfa

[~BD~]

Arfa Daily wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> All your comments are most helpful, Thank you so much for taking the
>> time and trouble to advise me.
>>
>> Have a great day! :-)
>>
>> Thanks again, 'Arfa' (great nym!)
>
> Interestingly, a friend rang me this morning, to say that he was at the
> house of a work colleague, and he was having a similar problem to you
> with a Sammy 32". It actually kept reporting "Weak Signal" on the
> screen, apparently.
>
> I suggested that he did a complete 'new install' retune, to see what
> happened. he rang back a couple of hours later to say that it was all
> now sorted and working fine with quote "hundreds of channels". The only
> problem that he had was that he reckons that he could not find a new
> install option in the tuning sub-menu, so he did a bit of thinking
> outside the box, and selected a 'wrong' country setting, and then asked
> it to do a retune. This, he claims, caused it to find nothing, which
> cleared out the tuning memory, so that when he set it back to "UK" and
> repeated the procedure, it found all the correct multiplexes for where
> the antenna was pointing.
>
> I was a bit sceptical about there not being a total reset option buried
> somewhere 3 or 4 menu levels down, but whatever. His method did the job,
> even if it was a bit around the houses ...

With nothing to lose, I tried that. I got great ITV pictures and no BBC!

So - I reset to factory condition and then retuned.

Right now I've got good pictures on *all* channels! <rolls eyes>

There's *nothing* worse than an intermittent fault! Grrrr!

> OK on the nic. It is of course my tongue-in-cheek tribute to the great
> George Cole, and one of my favourite characters of his, Arthur Daley
>
> Arfa

Gottcha! 8-)

[amdx]

Nowadays, aren't most TV's a computer driven monitor.
Mikek :-)

[William Sommerwerck]

It was working fine, then didn't work? This suggests a possible change in
reception conditions. You should definitely swap the sets, as suggested.

However...

You've lost SD reception (SD being 625-line PAL), but not HD, right? As far
as I know, SD and HD use separate tuners. (I think.) I could be that the SD
tuner has gone out.

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker"

>
> You've lost SD reception (SD being 625-line PAL), but not HD, right? As
> far
> as I know, SD and HD use separate tuners. (I think.) I could be that the
> SD
> tuner has gone out.

** The RF stages do not change with SD and HD.



.... Phil

[William Sommerwerck]

>> You've lost SD reception (SD being 625-line PAL), but not HD,
>> right? As far as I know, SD and HD use separate tuners. (I think.)
>> I could be that the SD tuner has gone out.

> ** The RF stages do not change with SD and HD.

Do you mean just the front end, or the IF section, too?

Given his description, it's hard to believe it was caused only by a change
in signal level.

We'll have a better when he swaps the sets.

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwaker "

>>> You've lost SD reception (SD being 625-line PAL), but not HD,
>>> right? As far as I know, SD and HD use separate tuners. (I think.)
>>> I could be that the SD tuner has gone out.
>
>> ** The RF stages do not change with SD and HD.
>
> Do you mean just the front end, or the IF section, too?
>
> Given his description, it's hard to believe it was caused only by a change
> in signal level.

** Wot a fuckwit.

[Allodoxaphobia]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 20:44:23 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:
>
> ** Wot a fuckwit.

I am consantly impressed with your erudite contribution to this ng.