Digital TV in Oz
Adam F
Hello All,
I just cuaght a rather short segment on the ABC program 'The 7:30
Report' today (29/1) about Digital TV. Apparently it is already
being tested and transmissions should commence alongside the
current analogue transmissions by the year 2000.
Acording to the report, the digital transmission should be much
clearer than analogue (We will see!) and will require less
bandwitdth to provide either more free-to-air channels (lame)
or provide HDTV (This is already overdue) in a 16:9 ratio!
It also said that there was two competing digital standards from
the US and Europe.
If anyone knows where I can get more information on this subject,
please reply.
Adam.
--
Adam Fairbank // Email...... ad...@iaccess.com.au
Melbourne, Australia // Telephone.. +61-411-159-829
David Ralphs
Adam F (ad...@iaccess.com.au) wrote:
: Hello All,
: I just cuaght a rather short segment on the ABC program 'The 7:30
: Report' today (29/1) about Digital TV. Apparently it is already
: being tested and transmissions should commence alongside the
: current analogue transmissions by the year 2000.
: Acording to the report, the digital transmission should be much
: clearer than analogue (We will see!) and will require less
: bandwitdth to provide either more free-to-air channels (lame)
: or provide HDTV (This is already overdue) in a 16:9 ratio!
: It also said that there was two competing digital standards from
: the US and Europe.
: If anyone knows where I can get more information on this subject,
: please reply.
Ill see if I can dig out some info.
I do know that a month or so ago a digital transmission test
was done from the channel 9 mast in sydney. This was a group
effort between the stations...
DN
--
----------------------------------------------------------
| David N Ralphs |
| ATN - Channel 7 Phone: (02) 9877 7707 |
| Mobbs Lane Fax: (02) 9877 7894 |
| Epping, NSW Email: d...@atn.atn7.oz.au |
----------------------------------------------------------
These views are mine.. no one else would agree with them!
Peter Brown
Greg Alexander wrote:
>
> Adam F wrote:
> > I just cuaght a rather short segment on the ABC program 'The 7:30
> > Report' today (29/1) about Digital TV. Apparently it is already
> > being tested and transmissions should commence alongside the
> > current analogue transmissions by the year 2000.
>
>
> > Acording to the report, the digital transmission should be much
> > clearer than analogue (We will see!)
>
> <snip>
>
> > It also said that there was two competing digital standards from
> > the US and Europe.
>
> The US has said "let the market decide", so it looks like they'll
> have a standards war, and in 5 years one system will emerge.
> The UK is defining their standard now. They're also specifying
> one decoder for all your digital TV - Free-to-Air, Cable & Satellite.
> The article was pro following the UK standard. Unfortunately it
> didn't say much about Europe, but if BSkyB has to use the UK
> decoder then it'll become adopted in several countries.
>
> > If anyone knows where I can get more information on this subject,
> > please reply.
>
> Greg
Just saw a news report on channel 7 that purpots that digital TVs will
be available in Aust. from the end of 1998.
IPggi
Think, as soon as digital tv's are released all those wide,big screen
analog tv's we have drolled over the past few years will become a lot
cheaper and errr redundent.
Greg Alexander
Kevin Lentin
Frere <phi...@griffith.dwr.csiro.au> wrote:
> The Australian Broadcasting Authority is the definitive source. Channels 9A
> and 11 in the VHF band are reserved for digital TV transmission.
Umm, I already have problems because my Chanell 9 signal is so strong that
it interferes with Ch. 10 (had to get a box put in the roof to attenuate
the 9 signal so we could maintain stereo on 10). Now they're going to shove
a digital, high definition channel half way in between? Oh happy happy joy
joy.
--
[======================================================================]
[ Kevin Lentin Email: K.Le...@cs.monash.edu.au ]
[ finger kev...@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au for PGP public key block. ]
[ KeyId: 06808EED FingerPrint: 6024308DE1F84314 811B511DBA6FD596 ]
[======================================================================]
Frere
>If anyone knows where I can get more information on this subject,
>please reply.
The Australian Broadcasting Authority is the definitive source. Channels 9A
Kevin Lentin
Adam Lee <al...@sa.iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Do you live in line of sight of the FTA transmitters?. I do, and my
> reception on 7,9,10 is absolutely perfect. On ABC and SBS it depends,
> sometimes it's good, other times it's crap. The only time it's bad on
> Ten is when I switch on my PC :).
When I upgraded to a Pentium I started getting red waves all over channel
9. 10 seems ok. Our ABC suffers from the 'Doncaster spots'.
Adam Lee
On 30 Jan 1997 23:26:30 GMT, Kevin Lentin
<kev...@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Umm, I already have problems because my Chanell 9 signal is so strong that
>it interferes with Ch. 10 (had to get a box put in the roof to attenuate
>the 9 signal so we could maintain stereo on 10). Now they're going to shove
>a digital, high definition channel half way in between? Oh happy happy joy
>joy.
Do you live in line of sight of the FTA transmitters?. I do, and my
reception on 7,9,10 is absolutely perfect. On ABC and SBS it depends,
sometimes it's good, other times it's crap. The only time it's bad on
Ten is when I switch on my PC :).
Adam
Adam Lee
On 31 Jan 1997 03:21:21 GMT, Kevin Lentin
<kev...@fangorn.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>When I upgraded to a Pentium I started getting red waves all over channel
>9. 10 seems ok. Our ABC suffers from the 'Doncaster spots'.
What I get when my PC is switched on, is diagonal (sp) ghost lines
flying through the screen. However, I moved my arial onto the roof of
the house yesterday (dont ask) and it seems to have fixed those
problems. Reception is now 110% crystal clear! :).. The ABC is also
located a couple of suburbs away from me, so I guess that's why the
reception on that channel is clear aswell. UHF 31 is still crap
though!
Adam
Fraser Bryden
Greg Alexander <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Acording to the report, the digital transmission should be much
>> clearer than analogue (We will see!)
>That's believable - it'll have to be no picture, or perfect.
Would it? CD players have circuitry that "makes up" the missing bits
if there's a small dropout in the bitstream, and the better portable
CD players have buffers that store a few seconds worth of data if
there's a larger dropout.
I would imagine that digital TV's would have equivalent circuitry to
ensure continuity of the picture (up to a point)
>> It also said that there was two competing digital standards from
>> the US and Europe.
Oh joy, first Beta vs VHS, then D-AMPS vs GSM, then MD vs DAT, ...
Fraser.
---
"In real life, there IS no reset button"
Fraser Bryden
mailto:ski...@blackadder.cse.rmit.edu.au
http://blackadder.cse.rmit.edu.au/~skiman
Marty Luning
Frere <phi...@griffith.dwr.csiro.au> wrote in article
<philip.51...@griffith.dwr.csiro.au>...
> In article <5cnm00$p...@sleipnir.iaccess.com.au> ad...@iaccess.com.au
(Adam F) writes:
>
>
> >If anyone knows where I can get more information on this subject,
> >please reply.
>
Here are "some" links courtesy of a search with my Internet Fastfind
http://www.current.org/atv1.html
http://www.gatech.edu/hypermail/ale/0837.html
Adam Lee
On Sat, 01 Feb 1997 12:14:07 GMT, ski...@blackadder.cse.rmit.edu.au
(Fraser Bryden) wrote:
>
>Odd how different people have problems with different channels with
>regard to PC's. Mine's Channel 2 - can't watch it at all with the PC
>on. Also as I don't have a proper aerial yet, the only channel that
>doesn't work well is you guessed it, Channel 2 - even 31 and SBS-28
>work well with the proverbial 'piece of wet string'
Well now that I have moved the outside antenna - it seems to have
fixed the problem (PC interference). I think the closer your arial is
to your PC, the worse the reception is. Funny you should mention the
different problems with different channels though. Last night my
cousin and I were discussing that very subject. My reception of the
ABC is perfect, and SBS is weaker, while his is the opposite way
around, and he lives closer to the ABC than I do!. Weird huh?.
Adam
Greg Alexander
Adam Lee wrote:
> Well now that I have moved the outside antenna - it seems to have
> fixed the problem (PC interference). I think the closer your arial is
> to your PC, the worse the reception is. Funny you should mention the
> different problems with different channels though.
We don't receive channel 9 properly if the antenna cable goes
next to the Galaxy (Digital) decoder. Infact, I can't move the
cable far enough away to avoid the interference (yep, long
AV cords may be an answer)
At the moment I pull the plug on the decoder whenever Bab5 is on.
Seeya
Greg
Adam Lee
On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 23:46:23 +1100, Greg Alexander
<gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>We don't receive channel 9 properly if the antenna cable goes
>next to the Galaxy (Digital) decoder. Infact, I can't move the
>cable far enough away to avoid the interference (yep, long
>AV cords may be an answer)
>At the moment I pull the plug on the decoder whenever Bab5 is on.
I never really had that problem when I had Galaxy. The only problem I
had was that the cables were really shit quality!. Where is your
antenna located? Maybe the decoder is causing some kind of
interference with it. If you don't have an outside TV antenna, I would
strongly recommend you get one as it improves reception drasticly!
Adam
Greg Alexander
Adam Lee wrote:
>
> On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 23:46:23 +1100, Greg Alexander
> <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >We don't receive channel 9 properly if the antenna cable goes
> >next to the Galaxy (Digital) decoder. Infact, I can't move the
> >cable far enough away to avoid the interference (yep, long
> >AV cords may be an answer)
> >At the moment I pull the plug on the decoder whenever Bab5 is on.
>
> I never really had that problem when I had Galaxy.
> Where is your antenna located?
On the roof. About 20foot up from the decoder, and 10foot across.
> Maybe the decoder is causing some kind of
> interference with it.
Nope it's definitely the cable - can see the interference change
as we move the cable closer or further from the decoder. We
don't run the cable through the decoder anymore.
> If you don't have an outside TV antenna, I would
> strongly recommend you get one as it improves reception drasticly!
Yep it is. My Channel 9, 2 (and SBS) are pretty bad. 9 is good
when Galaxy is disconnected. Pity Galaxy can't rebroadcast
2 and SBS though (they're both on FTA satellite already)
Seeya
Greg
Malcolm Taylor
IM wrote:
>
> There are 2 competing systems for digital TV in Oz
> being the European COFDM and the US 8VSB systems.
> The chances of us using the US system are minimal
> but tests are being done on both systems.
> The COFDM system was tested from TCN on channel 8
> in Sydney during the FACTS conference in Sydney last
> year.
> The system gave results that exceeded expectations as
> to required power and coverage. The tests proved that
> itis possible to run a digital channel on an adjacent
> channel to an existing analogue channel.
> The ABA has now agreed that Channel 7 will get channel
> 6, Channel 9 will get channel 8, Channel 10 will get
> the new channel 9A, and most likely the ABC will get
> channel 12 for analogue and channel 11 for digital.
> The band 1 and 2 channels will not be used.
> The DOCA lab in Canberra has the transmitters for further
> tests at the moment, but more on-air tests will be
> made shortly.
> The standard to be used will be DVB MPEG2 at about
> 20 mbs for High Defenition and about 6-8 mbs for
> conventional channels.
> There is a book with the government working party
> recommendations available from the ABA now.
Given that VHF was virtually abandoned in favour of UHF some years ago
for analogue TV, presumably because the spectrum was supposed to be
crowded, why is it now being resurrected for Digital?
Malcolm Taylor
Rose Park
South Australia
cw...@newsmail.tafensw.edu.au
In article <32f14b2e...@news.iinet.net.au>, al...@sa.iinet.net.au (Adam Lee) writes:
>
> Do you live in line of sight of the FTA transmitters?. I do, and my
> reception on 7,9,10 is absolutely perfect. On ABC and SBS it depends,
> sometimes it's good, other times it's crap. The only time it's bad on
> Ten is when I switch on my PC :).
>
> Adam
>
I am not a physicist or engineer type, but Ill be buggered if I can understand
the reception I get. I live in Artarmon, I can see 9's transmitter. It is less
than 1k away. (I can also see SBS, 7 and ABC I think). In fact Im so colse to
Ch9 I can sometimes hear the footy show, live, when I'm in my garden and the TV
is off).
If I have the ariel plugged in on either of my 2 TV's the ch9 reception is
either :
a) Grainy
b) Sharp, but shadows from 7 or 10 can be seen in blackspots
Now if I scientifically remove the ariel from the TV socket and....wait for
it... STICK MY FINGER IN IT, I get a perfect, chrystal clear picture !!
ABC, SBS, 7 and 10 are always good.
My neighbour (yet another master of electronic gadgets like myself !) has
performed this test and he notices a great improvement (of course he uses his
own finger and not mine, for safety reasons).
Regards,
Chris
!---------------------------------------------------------------------------
! !
! Chris Will, Sydney, NSW, Australia - Chris...@Tafensw.edu.au !
! !
! Astronomers have discovered Heaven, it is called G34.3 !
! !
!---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Alexander
cw...@newsmail.tafensw.edu.au wrote:
> If I have the ariel plugged in on either of my 2 TV's the ch9 reception is
> either :
> a) Grainy
> b) Sharp, but shadows from 7 or 10 can be seen in blackspots
>
> Now if I scientifically remove the ariel from the TV socket and....wait for
> it... STICK MY FINGER IN IT, I get a perfect, chrystal clear picture !!
My friend couldn't receive a couple of channels properly in Newtown,
but says he retuned them using UHF and they're perfect. I
didn't think they were broadcast on UHF... but maybe that's
an option for you if they are?
Greg
Greg Alexander
> Greg Alexander <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> It also said that there was two competing digital standards from
> >> the US and Europe.
Fraser Bryden wrote:
> Oh joy, first Beta vs VHS, then D-AMPS vs GSM, then MD vs DAT, ...
No! It hasn't progressed to 2 camps yet. I'm not sure whether
this is much worse or better.... I figure worse.
I'm not sure of the world-wide story. Anyone know?
One standard in the UK.
Competing standards in the US.
Europe? Well Sky will probably go the way of the UK, so the other
countries may do too (hopefully)
Japan? I think they're involved with some of the US guys.
Seeya
Greg
Fraser Bryden
cw...@newsmail.tafensw.edu.au wrote:
>I am not a physicist or engineer type, but Ill be buggered if I can understand
>the reception I get. I live in Artarmon, I can see 9's transmitter. It is less
>than 1k away. (I can also see SBS, 7 and ABC I think). In fact Im so colse to
>Ch9 I can sometimes hear the footy show, live, when I'm in my garden and the TV
>is off).
>If I have the ariel plugged in on either of my 2 TV's the ch9 reception is
>either :
> a) Grainy
> b) Sharp, but shadows from 7 or 10 can be seen in blackspots
>Now if I scientifically remove the ariel from the TV socket and....wait for
>it... STICK MY FINGER IN IT, I get a perfect, chrystal clear picture !!
>ABC, SBS, 7 and 10 are always good.
Could it be because you are too close to the transmitter? I also had
crappy reception on most channels when I lived in Artarmon (Broughton
Rd) I guess your finger aerial gives just enough signal for a picture
but not too much as to overload it.
Of course, Sydney is notorious for reception difficulties due to the
topography. You might want to try a UHF aerial and tune to one of the
UHF repeaters on the north shore
Anthony White
cw...@newsmail.tafensw.edu.au wrote:
> If I have the ariel plugged in on either of my 2 TV's the ch9 reception is
> either :
> a) Grainy
> b) Sharp, but shadows from 7 or 10 can be seen in blackspots
>
> Now if I scientifically remove the ariel from the TV socket and....wait for
> it... STICK MY FINGER IN IT, I get a perfect, chrystal clear picture !!
What you are experiencing is the effect of overdrive of your TV Tuner
(The part of the TV that converts the RF (Radio frequency) to Audio and
Video for the picture tube and the speakers.
You do not mention the brand of your TV but only the best quality
TV-Sets (Read: Expensive) will handle such strong signals without a
problem. Most average sets are simply not up to it. They buckle under
the strong signal and give distorted, grainy or snow filled pictures.
Here is what you do:
1. Get a good antenna with 4 or 5 elements.
2. Buy an attenuator. It should have a value of aprox. 20-30 dB.
3. Plug the attenuator into the TV antenna socket (Important).
4. Plug the antenna into the attenuator.
This will almost certainly give you good reception. By using the
relatively large antenna you will eliminate the chances of ghosting and
your signal will be well defined. The large attenuator is needed to
lower the signal before it enters the TV Tuner. You may get as much as
85-95 dBuV without attenuation.
Many TV-Sets have problems with such high levels. If you do not place
the attenuator right by the TV's input you will have stray signals
entering the TV after the attenuator, causing blured vertical lines and
a general degredation of the signal.
> ABC, SBS, 7 and 10 are always good.
> My neighbour (yet another master of electronic gadgets like myself !) has
> performed this test and he notices a great improvement (of course he uses his
> own finger and not mine, for safety reasons).
If all signals from the transmitter site are VHF you will proberbly have
no problems. However SBS is often only on UHF. In this case you may
need a seperate UHF antenna. You can also get combined VHF/UHF
antennas.
It is important to ensure that all channels arrive at your TV-Set at
approx. the same level. The ideal level would be between 65 and 75
dBuV. If there is more than 7-8 dBuV diviation between adjacent
channels you may still have problems.
Your TV-Tuner simply causes intermodulation which can be seen as a
"background" image moving slowely or standing still.
You can purchase a filter which will enable adjusting the levels of each
channel so they come out the same. The only thing NOT to do is to use
any form of antenna amplifier. If you do all hell will break loose and
your reception will be ruined.
The above guidelines apply for people living up till 5-10 Km from the
transmitter, depending on the power of the transmitter.
The attenuator value may be reduced the further away from the
transmitter you get.
Unfortuneately checking these things properly requires a field strength
meter, a device which mesures the signal levels on each channel. Any
professional antenna company will have such an instrument.
Hopefully the above will help you and others.
Best regards
--
NOTE: To protect against UCE my E-Mail address has been modified,
changes
have been made to my address: "REMOVE_THIS." has been added - simply cut
out before replying, otherwise mail will bounce.
______________________________________________________________________
Anthony White, Melbourne, Australia.
E-Mail : awhite@REMOVE_THIS.c031.aone.net.au,
WWW Home-page: http://www.home.aone.net.au/awhite
______________________________________________________________________
Fraser Bryden
al...@sa.iinet.net.au (Adam Lee) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Feb 1997 23:46:23 +1100, Greg Alexander
><gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>We don't receive channel 9 properly if the antenna cable goes
>>next to the Galaxy (Digital) decoder. Infact, I can't move the
>>cable far enough away to avoid the interference (yep, long
>>AV cords may be an answer)
>>At the moment I pull the plug on the decoder whenever Bab5 is on.
>I never really had that problem when I had Galaxy. The only problem I
>had was that the cables were really shit quality!. Where is your
>antenna located? Maybe the decoder is causing some kind of
>interference with it. If you don't have an outside TV antenna, I would
>strongly recommend you get one as it improves reception drasticly!
I had a similar problem with the Optus Vision box - lots of diagonal
interference on ABC channel 2 on a TV which is nowhere near the Optus
box, but IS near where the cable enters the house from the pole. The
TV has an indoor aerial which is ok for most channels except UHF 31.
The techo replaced the box and the interference has dropped right
down, but not completely.
Adam Lee
On 3 Feb 97 13:22:26 +1000, cw...@newsmail.tafensw.edu.au wrote:
>
>I am not a physicist or engineer type, but Ill be buggered if I can understand
>the reception I get. I live in Artarmon, I can see 9's transmitter. It is less
>than 1k away. (I can also see SBS, 7 and ABC I think). In fact Im so colse to
>Ch9 I can sometimes hear the footy show, live, when I'm in my garden and the TV
>is off).
Maybe because you live so close to the transmitter the signal is too
powerful for the antenna to cope with? *shrug*. That's probably an
'out there' explination but just one that came to mind :).
>If I have the ariel plugged in on either of my 2 TV's the ch9 reception is
>either :
> a) Grainy
> b) Sharp, but shadows from 7 or 10 can be seen in blackspots
One thing I noticed when I changed the outside antenna positions, on
Ten, I get ghost like lines on the left hand side of the screen all
the time. Barely noticeable only if your looking for them. Slightly on
9, non existent on 7.
>Now if I scientifically remove the ariel from the TV socket and....wait for
>it... STICK MY FINGER IN IT, I get a perfect, chrystal clear picture !!
Heh, I noticed this too :). If you unplug the antenna cable and stick
your finger in there, you get reception!. Now, why can't we learn to
pick up television signals in our heads? :) Ohh the possibilities! :).
Adam
Joe Briganti
>>I am not a physicist or engineer type, but Ill be buggered if I can
understand
>>the reception I get. I live in Artarmon, I can see 9's transmitter. It is
less
>>than 1k away. (I can also see SBS, 7 and ABC I think). In fact Im so colse
to
>Maybe because you live so close to the transmitter the signal is too
>powerful for the antenna to cope with? *shrug*. That's probably an
>'out there' explination but just one that came to mind :).
I live "oppposite" the tv towers in the Dandenongs (Melb). I have a fairly
straight and unimpeded view and when installed my -on the roof- anntenna
discovered the above. The signal stregth is too strong. Mr Antenna man
added a "filter" (about 12db I think). Makes a lot of difference.
The -dept of broadcasting or radio wave transmissions- has several booklets
that help you identify common problems with receiving outside radio waves.
If theres a lot of interest I'll dig up the address unless someone else
knows what I'm on about!
--
"I can't imagine what he'd weigh, if Elvis were alive today" - Leunig
Joe Briganti (j.bri...@trl.telstra.com.au)
Adam Lee
On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:33:11 +1100, Greg Alexander
<gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>On the roof. About 20foot up from the decoder, and 10foot across.
Definalty far enough away then!.
>Nope it's definitely the cable - can see the interference change
>as we move the cable closer or further from the decoder. We
>don't run the cable through the decoder anymore.
I had exactly the same problem with the cables supplied by Galaxy.
Basically their crap. I had to replace my origional one, and it wasn't
long before the other one degraded either. I would suggest taking it
to your regional Galaxy office and ask them to replace it (dont pay
for it either).
>Yep it is. My Channel 9, 2 (and SBS) are pretty bad. 9 is good
>when Galaxy is disconnected. Pity Galaxy can't rebroadcast
>2 and SBS though (they're both on FTA satellite already)
Strange. Have you tried contacting Galaxy about this problem? Surely
there's some kind of law regarding the interference of the FTA signals
from Pay networks?.
Greg Alexander
Adam Lee wrote:
> I had exactly the same problem with the cables supplied by Galaxy.
> long before the other one degraded either. I would suggest taking it
> to your regional Galaxy office and ask them to replace it (dont pay
> for it either).
You know... I hadn't really considered trying to buy a shielded
Antenna cable (of course I don't know if they exist...)
But it's definitely worth a try.
> Strange. Have you tried contacting Galaxy about this problem? Surely
> there's some kind of law regarding the interference of the FTA signals
> from Pay networks?.
I guess there's a law against Pay signals interfering with FTA (like
interrupting their frequencies), but I doubt that a _decoder_ has the
same restrictions.
Seeya
Greg
Adam Lee
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:39:09 +1100, Greg Alexander
<gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>You know... I hadn't really considered trying to buy a shielded
>Antenna cable (of course I don't know if they exist...)
>But it's definitely worth a try.
Ever thought of wrapping tin foil around the cable? Heck, it's
supposed to stop aliens from reading your brain thoughts, so why
wouldn't it stop alien tv signals interfering with your fta tv? :)))).
>I guess there's a law against Pay signals interfering with FTA (like
>interrupting their frequencies), but I doubt that a _decoder_ has the
>same restrictions.
Wouldn't the decoder be in the same boat as the signals? Since it's
whole function is designed to decode the foriegn signals and send them
into your TV, I would have thought if the decoder is causing problems
you might also want to ring Galaxy and complain :).
Fraser
Thus spake the keyboard of al...@sa.iinet.net.au (Adam Lee):
>>I guess there's a law against Pay signals interfering with FTA (like
>>interrupting their frequencies), but I doubt that a _decoder_ has the
>>same restrictions.
>Wouldn't the decoder be in the same boat as the signals? Since it's
>whole function is designed to decode the foriegn signals and send them
>into your TV, I would have thought if the decoder is causing problems
>you might also want to ring Galaxy and complain :).
I wouldve imagined that the decoder would be in the same boat as other
electrical equipment capable of causing a certain amount of
interference eg your personal computer, radio, TV, microwave,
dishwasher etc...