Very bad Freeview reception -- evenings only
Chris Jones
For the last three nights, we have seen our Freeview reception drop from no
visible/audible flaws to a very broken signal (strength around 70%, but
quality dropping from normally 100% to as low as 60% in bursts).
This has just started again (20:45 on Wednesday) and seems to be happening
at almost the same time every night, and then continuing until some time
after we go to bed but fine again by the morning. During the daytime and
early evening, the signal has been perfectly normal every day, no
observable disruption at all.
I know there are always questions about things like atmospheric
interference or damp, but this seems too black and white to be something
like that. I'm thinking either there is maintenance work going on at the
transmitter that is killing the signal, or someone nearby is using
something that is generating horrendous amounts of interference.
Does anyone know of anything that might explain this? It's really annoying
that things start going bad around peak time every night.
If there is someone causing this much interference, I would have thought
that would be breaking all kinds of rules, but what does one do about it?
Thanks,
Chris
--
My name isn't really Chris Jones, but I play him on Usenet.
tony sayer
<n...@this.address> scribeth thus
Nope.. nothing adverse going on at the Heath at the moment, a new aerial
stack was installed a few months ago and has, according to those in the
know been fine ever since. The one at that "other place" caught fire;!..
So where are you?. What aerial is in use?. How old is it?. Has freeview
reception ever been that good?.
Tried your freeview box on another TV and aerial somewhere and perhaps
vice-versa?..
Asked the neighbours if there're having the same or similar problems?.
And yes, you can call Ofcom out if its a gen source of interference but
if it isn't then you'll get charged;!..
--
Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher
Used to do that here: tropospheric scatter and Dutch stations being in
exactly the same line of sight as Sudbury. Been OK since they upped the
power.
Other possibility is wet leaves a blowin in the wind!
Cwatters
"Chris Jones" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:4c0ff1dd$0$28007$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Hi all,
>
> For the last three nights, we have seen our Freeview reception drop from
> no visible/audible flaws to a very broken signal (strength around 70%, but
> quality dropping from normally 100% to as low as 60% in bursts).
Can be due to interferrence caused by weather conditions. Can't say I've
noticed a proble mwhere I am though.
Is it on all multiplexes?
Chris Jones
> So where are you?.
Ring road end of Mill Road.
> What aerial is in use?. How old is it?.
I don't know the exact model, but it was installed specifically for
FreeView not long ago.
> Has freeview reception ever been that good?.
It's usually flawless, signal strength a little over 70% and quality 100%.
It has been so during the daytime and early evening for the past couple of
days, too.
The poor reception only seems to occur later in the evening and into the
early hours each day, at remarkably consistent times, hence my suspicion
that it is neither random atmospheric interference nor a problem with the
hardware on our end.
There did seem to be a bit of static around the aerial while I was
experimenting, but again the worst of the weather here over the past couple
of days has been during the daytime, when the reception was fine, rather
than into the night, when there are obvious problems. I'm a little
concerned for the health of the equipment connected to the aerial, but it's
all been working OK for substantial parts of the day.
> Tried your freeview box on another TV and aerial somewhere and perhaps
> vice-versa?..
We don't have another aerial worth trying, but we have connected different
Freeview boxes, and similar flaws in the signal were evident on all of them
during the problem hours. Everything is handling the signal fine at most
times, though, and other than the past three evenings we haven't had any
significant difficulties with reception for a long time.
> Asked the neighbours if there're having the same or similar problems?.
I'll do so if I see anyone tomorrow. Unfortunately, the problems have only
started quite late in the evening, so no-one is out and about, and it would
be a bit antisocial to knock.
> And yes, you can call Ofcom out if its a gen source of interference but
> if it isn't then you'll get charged;!..
So how do I tell if it is or not...? :-)
Thanks for the reply,
Cwatters
"Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:oeqdnZbsGdqZjo3R...@brightview.co.uk...
Actually now I think about it I think BBC Four is missing from Mux D.
Other channels such as CBeebies in same mux seem ok.
Phone Box
news:4c0ff1dd$0$28007$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Hi,
I have noticed more glitches than usual recently but generally OK.
Cheers
Peter.
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
I might be wrong but I don't think they've upped it at all, thats due to
come, come digital switchover when it all should improve...
>
>Other possibility is wet leaves a blowin in the wind!
Sometimes that can be rather the case;!..
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<n...@this.address> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> So where are you?.
>
>Ring road end of Mill Road.
Not the very best area in Cam, but should be OK..
>
>> What aerial is in use?. How old is it?.
>
>I don't know the exact model, but it was installed specifically for
>FreeView not long ago.
>
Well if it wasn't -that- long ago then I'd ask the installer to come and
check the level its delivering. They should if they were anything like
they ought be, be able to check levels and BER etc..
>> Has freeview reception ever been that good?.
>
>It's usually flawless, signal strength a little over 70% and quality 100%.
>It has been so during the daytime and early evening for the past couple of
>days, too.
OK where is the aerial?, up on a chimney, on the wall in the loft any
amplifiers fitted that you know of?..
>
>The poor reception only seems to occur later in the evening and into the
>early hours each day, at remarkably consistent times, hence my suspicion
>that it is neither random atmospheric interference nor a problem with the
>hardware on our end.
Does seem to indicate that tho such things can be a bit of a pig to
diagnose. See below..
>
>There did seem to be a bit of static around the aerial while I was
>experimenting,
Static, what sort of static?..
>but again the worst of the weather here over the past couple
>of days has been during the daytime, when the reception was fine, rather
>than into the night, when there are obvious problems. I'm a little
>concerned for the health of the equipment connected to the aerial, but it's
>all been working OK for substantial parts of the day.
Sometimes in wet weather and if the aerial weatherproofing isn't what it
might be co-ax cables tend to fill with water which can have very
interesting effects. Sometimes its worth noting if theres any water
coming out of the aerial plug at all..
>
>> Tried your freeview box on another TV and aerial somewhere and perhaps
>> vice-versa?..
>
>We don't have another aerial worth trying, but we have connected different
>Freeview boxes, and similar flaws in the signal were evident on all of them
>during the problem hours. Everything is handling the signal fine at most
>times, though, and other than the past three evenings we haven't had any
>significant difficulties with reception for a long time.
>
>> Asked the neighbours if there're having the same or similar problems?.
>
>I'll do so if I see anyone tomorrow. Unfortunately, the problems have only
>started quite late in the evening, so no-one is out and about, and it would
>be a bit antisocial to knock.
Well ask them earlier then;!, I'm sure they'll remember, but don't go
too far away as this might even be in your house. Eliminating that can
be done. Run the TV and freeview box off somewhere like a 13 amp outlet
off the cooker circuit via an extension lead and then dump the main ring
main or mains and lighting circuits so most all of the house is un
powered and note the results. If you can't do that see if you can cobble
up a test lead off another circuit somewhere, a lighting circuit would
be able to handle that load for test purposes but ONLY do this if you
know what your doing!..
It might be an idea to keep an ear on an AM radio tuned to a blank bit
of the medium wave band to see if there're any odd crackles,
interference tends to be wideband in nature. If loud long crackles
accompany pix disturbance then your onto summatt..
>
>> And yes, you can call Ofcom out if its a gen source of interference but
>> if it isn't then you'll get charged;!..
>
>So how do I tell if it is or not...? :-)
By doing some/all of the above otherwise there going to have to come out
at night and that won't be cheap if its your system at fault!..
Have or can you post a pix somewhere of the aerial, where its located
and a close up of it?..
>
>Thanks for the reply,
>Chris
>
--
Tony Sayer
Excellent Freeview reception but now gone to freesat;!..
tony sayer
<colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> scribeth thus
Tried a re scan?..
>
>Other channels such as CBeebies in same mux seem ok.
Yep thats the difficult one right up the top of the band, but come
digital switchover that will change:)..
>
>
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> scribeth thus
>
This sort of thing isn't weather related, thats usually the cause of co
and adjacent channel interference which would result in a huge number of
people being affected, but the weather isn't quite like that now;!..
--
Tony Sayer
Cwatters
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y1SvjTKg...@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <JZ6dnTqQi6_ji43R...@brightview.co.uk>, Cwatters
> <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> scribeth thus
>>
>>"Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:oeqdnZbsGdqZjo3R...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Chris Jones" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
>>> news:4c0ff1dd$0$28007$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> For the last three nights, we have seen our Freeview reception drop
>>>> from
>>>> no visible/audible flaws to a very broken signal (strength around 70%,
>>>> but quality dropping from normally 100% to as low as 60% in bursts).
>>>
>>> Can be due to interferrence caused by weather conditions. Can't say I've
>>> noticed a proble mwhere I am though.
>>>
>>> Is it on all multiplexes?
>>
>>Actually now I think about it I think BBC Four is missing from Mux D.
>
> Tried a re scan?..
Yes I have. Twice on two boxes (same make) but both times were in the
evening.
Cwatters
>
> Yes I have. Twice on two boxes (same make) but both times were in the
> evening.
Ha. It fooled me, I thought CBeebies in the same Mux was ok but now I look
again I see when enter ch 71 for CBeebies it actually switches to CBBC on 70
because CBeebies is also missing. Not being a fan of those channels I didn't
notice the difference.
Seems all of Mux B is missing which is obviously much easier to explain as
it's the difficult mux. Checked the signal strength and quality and both on
zero. Bit odd as I have a pretty good installation here. New three years ago
and been pretty perfect ever since.
Will have to go check the aerial, see if some loft insulation has fallen on
it.
Colin
Cwatters
PS. Yes I know a loft aerial isn't good practice.
Cwatters
Humm. Looks like the signal strength has fallen since we put our aerial in.
Three years ago was getting 80% or more on all mux. Today Mux B was down to
about 40%. May have to move the aerial outside after all.
Ian Bidwell
"Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:-oidnWy5LcHwJY3R...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
> Humm. Looks like the signal strength has fallen since we put our aerial
> in. Three years ago was getting 80% or more on all mux. Today Mux B was
> down to about 40%. May have to move the aerial outside after all.
>
>
>
Don't bother unless all else fails as signal strength will be hugely boosted
next April so loft should be OK and mux moved down from 67 to the 40's
Ian
Cwatters
"Ian Bidwell" <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:lC3Qn.39$g76.0@hurricane...
Yes can't come fast enough.
zulu
Why can't they do it _noW_ and get iy done with?
<come in Tony>
Surely my wife is the only person to actuallly _want_ analogue!
(she does like feletext or ceefax or whatever it's called.
"It's not the same on digital..."
<sigh>*
--
ŚzuluŚ VIP
Paul Bird
No she's not the only one. Watch what happens to the screen when a
horizontal line or series of stripes appear on screen and then rotate,
for example somebody wearing a striped t-shirt. As the camera angle
changes the the stripes pass through being exactly horizontal on screen
there are artifacts or pixellation as the image breaks up at a high
resolution. Not pleasant to look at. It happens with buildings too,
tiled roofs, any surface that has a square or rectangular pattern
repeated. I don't remember seeing that happen with analogue pictures.
I have no idea at which stage of transmission this occurs, but it
happens, and I'm not sure it will disappear with stronger signals from
Sandy.
PB
tony sayer
<i.bi...@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
Course in the meantime you can go and listen to the wireless;)...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> scribeth thus
>
leaf in the direction of the TX?...
Or has it fallen over .. literally..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
>
>"Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
>news:f_ednXyXNuyTVY3R...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> "Ian Bidwell" <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:lC3Qn.39$g76.0@hurricane...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in
>>> message news:-oidnWy5LcHwJY3R...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Humm. Looks like the signal strength has fallen since we put our aerial
>>>> in. Three years ago was getting 80% or more on all mux. Today Mux B was
>>>> down to about 40%. May have to move the aerial outside after all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Don't bother unless all else fails as signal strength will be hugely
>>> boosted next April so loft should be OK and mux moved down from 67 to the
>>> 40's
>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> Yes can't come fast enough.
>
>Why can't they do it _noW_ and get iy done with?
Cost.. logistics number of available aerial riggers, or raving madmen
whichever way you look at that to do the work rather difficult operation
that, also weather dependant!. Amount of equipment and aerial systems
required, remember there are very specialist equipment's. Can't be done
overnight. Problems with frequency compatibility area by area etc.
Need to keep services on air it just doesn't do the deprive people of
Corrie;!
Heres a good example of what's involved.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/stocklandhill/dso/index.php
and a bit quicker this one locally, done with a big chopper;)..
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/sandyheath/dso/index.php
>
><come in Tony>
>
>Surely my wife is the only person to actuallly _want_ analogue!
>(she does like feletext or ceefax or whatever it's called.
>"It's not the same on digital..."
No pity;!...
>
><sigh>*
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
>horizontal line or series of stripes appear on screen and then rotate,
>for example somebody wearing a striped t-shirt. As the camera angle
>changes the the stripes pass through being exactly horizontal on screen
>there are artifacts or pixellation as the image breaks up at a high
>resolution. Not pleasant to look at. It happens with buildings too,
>tiled roofs, any surface that has a square or rectangular pattern
>repeated. I don't remember seeing that happen with analogue pictures.
>I have no idea at which stage of transmission this occurs, but it
>happens, and I'm not sure it will disappear with stronger signals from
>Sandy.
>
>PB
Nope. Inherent in the transmitted bit rates . Remember broadcasting
these days is quantity over quality;(...
--
Tony Sayer
Paul Bird
stop. I watch a lot of housing programmes and see a lot of roof tiles,
it's a pain. :-)
PB
The Natural Philosopher
might/should improve with HD.
I know the Formula 1 broadcasts are often very crap, but the same
channel can do a lot better with a different source, so some of this
stuff is actually further up the food chain.
magwitch
I watch apart from the odd film) I'm not bothered, although paying �142
for one programme of 13 episodes sounds a bit steep - the DVDs would be
cheaper.
magwitch
The wirelss is unlistenable too these days. Break up the BBC!
Paul Bird
Now you're exaggerating, R4 on FM is ok.
PB
magwitch
Especially R4 is especially NOT ok. If I have to listen to another
feature on what Mandelson/Campbell or that arse Trevor Phillips is up to
today, I'll stop paying the license.
Chris Jones
tony sayer wrote:
> Chris Jones wrote:
>> Ring road end of Mill Road.
>
> Not the very best area in Cam, but should be OK..
It's normally fine. We've had the odd problem at this time of year in the
past, but never anything as disruptive as this, and not at specific times
of day.
>>> What aerial is in use?. How old is it?.
>> I don't know the exact model, but it was installed specifically for
>> FreeView not long ago.
>
> Well if it wasn't -that- long ago then I'd ask the installer to come and
> check the level its delivering. They should if they were anything like
> they ought be, be able to check levels and BER etc..
It's been about three years now, so I'm not sure how reasonable that would be.
> OK where is the aerial?, up on a chimney, on the wall in the loft any
> amplifiers fitted that you know of?..
The aerial is external, mounted on the wall near the highest point of the
roof and rising a few feet above that to the receiver itself. It's well
above the neighbours' house, and facing Sandy Heath.
>> There did seem to be a bit of static around the aerial while I was
>> experimenting,
>
> Static, what sort of static?..
I got a couple of obvious shocks from the connector at the end of the
external aerial cable (which runs out through the wall and straight up to
the aerial itself). This was while moving the aerial between the various
Freeview boxes during testing. Per the instructions on the devices, I had
unplugged various things from the mains before moving the aerial, if that
makes any difference.
All the Freeview boxes have continued to work as normal since then,
including receiving and displaying TV fine other than at the problem times
of day, so there doesn't seem to have been any serious damage from the
static discharges. However, I did wonder if this might indicate some sort
of build-up on the aerial itself, and whether that might somehow contribute
to the poor reception.
> Sometimes in wet weather and if the aerial weatherproofing isn't what it
> might be co-ax cables tend to fill with water which can have very
> interesting effects. Sometimes its worth noting if theres any water
> coming out of the aerial plug at all..
There's nothing visible. I suspect this isn't the problem, because
presumably if there were water in the cable, it wouldn't start disrupting
the signals at almost exactly the same time every evening...
> Well ask them earlier then;!, I'm sure they'll remember, but don't go
> too far away as this might even be in your house. Eliminating that can
> be done. Run the TV and freeview box off somewhere like a 13 amp outlet
> off the cooker circuit via an extension lead and then dump the main ring
> main or mains and lighting circuits so most all of the house is un
> powered and note the results. If you can't do that see if you can cobble
> up a test lead off another circuit somewhere, a lighting circuit would
> be able to handle that load for test purposes but ONLY do this if you
> know what your doing!..
I'm not sure how practical those suggestions are for us, unfortunately. The
kitchen stuff is all hard-wired in, as far as I can see, and given it's a
rented property we're not in a position to start changing the wiring around
even if we get an expert in to do it for us.
> It might be an idea to keep an ear on an AM radio tuned to a blank bit
> of the medium wave band to see if there're any odd crackles,
> interference tends to be wideband in nature. If loud long crackles
> accompany pix disturbance then your onto summatt..
That, we certainly can try. Thanks.
> By doing some/all of the above otherwise there going to have to come out
> at night and that won't be cheap if its your system at fault!..
According to their web site it's a �50 charge if it turns out to be our
system. Presumably to claim that they would have to at least diagnose the
specific part of our system that is at fault, though, which frankly would
be worth it at this stage if it really is our equipment.
I'm more worried that because the problem is not always there and obviously
we don't know what's causing it, they might turn up at a time when the
cause wasn't there, and as we know, the signal is perfectly fine otherwise.
> Have or can you post a pix somewhere of the aerial, where its located
> and a close up of it?..
I'll see what I can do, but it's nothing particularly special: it looks
like every other rooftop aerial on the street, and points in the same
direction.
I'm not an expert on this, but perhaps you can tell me: what sorts of tests
could an expert carry out on the aerial and cable to either find or rule
out any problem there, and would it just be a case of calling out someone
who installs aerials or would we need another kind of specialist to do
these tests?
Cheers,
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Well HD has been bit rate clobbered already so I expect that by the time
its more shall we say commonplace, it will match what analogue PAL could
do with a good PAL decoder.
Some of the HD from elsewhere in Europe via satellite is excellent:)..
--
Tony Sayer
Paul Bird
<snip>
>
> Well HD has been bit rate clobbered already so I expect that by the time
> its more shall we say commonplace, it will match what analogue PAL could
> do with a good PAL decoder.
Oh priceless! You couldn't make it up. You mean after all this hassle,
the extra box, the new flat panel TV (not yet for us), the promises,
we'll end up with a picture as good as 625 lines on a CRT set? <bows>Oh
thank you so much</bows>
tony sayer
>
>I got a couple of obvious shocks from the connector at the end of the
>external aerial cable (which runs out through the wall and straight up to
>the aerial itself). This was while moving the aerial between the various
>Freeview boxes during testing. Per the instructions on the devices, I had
>unplugged various things from the mains before moving the aerial, if that
>makes any difference.
Nothing to worry about just a bit of Capactive leakage quite the norm
with earth free equipment that will have no bearing in the reception at
all..
>
>All the Freeview boxes have continued to work as normal since then,
>including receiving and displaying TV fine other than at the problem times
>of day, so there doesn't seem to have been any serious damage from the
>static discharges. However, I did wonder if this might indicate some sort
>of build-up on the aerial itself, and whether that might somehow contribute
>to the poor reception.
>
>> Sometimes in wet weather and if the aerial weatherproofing isn't what it
>> might be co-ax cables tend to fill with water which can have very
>> interesting effects. Sometimes its worth noting if theres any water
>> coming out of the aerial plug at all..
>
>There's nothing visible. I suspect this isn't the problem, because
>presumably if there were water in the cable, it wouldn't start disrupting
>the signals at almost exactly the same time every evening...
It might, prolly might, reduce the level enough to make it more
susceptible to interfering signals..
>
>> Well ask them earlier then;!, I'm sure they'll remember, but don't go
>> too far away as this might even be in your house. Eliminating that can
>> be done. Run the TV and freeview box off somewhere like a 13 amp outlet
>> off the cooker circuit via an extension lead and then dump the main ring
>> main or mains and lighting circuits so most all of the house is un
>> powered and note the results. If you can't do that see if you can cobble
>> up a test lead off another circuit somewhere, a lighting circuit would
>> be able to handle that load for test purposes but ONLY do this if you
>> know what your doing!..
>
>I'm not sure how practical those suggestions are for us, unfortunately. The
>kitchen stuff is all hard-wired in, as far as I can see, and given it's a
>rented property we're not in a position to start changing the wiring around
>even if we get an expert in to do it for us.
>
>> It might be an idea to keep an ear on an AM radio tuned to a blank bit
>> of the medium wave band to see if there're any odd crackles,
>> interference tends to be wideband in nature. If loud long crackles
>> accompany pix disturbance then your onto summatt..
>
>That, we certainly can try. Thanks.
Right well if you can't isolate the mains then thats a very useful thing
to eliminate.. Might be an idea to see if you can switch -everything-
else off apart from the TV such things as immersion heather etc in case
anything is arcing somewhere..
>
>> By doing some/all of the above otherwise there going to have to come out
>> at night and that won't be cheap if its your system at fault!..
>
>According to their web site it's a £50 charge if it turns out to be our
>system. Presumably to claim that they would have to at least diagnose the
>specific part of our system that is at fault, though, which frankly would
>be worth it at this stage if it really is our equipment.
>
>I'm more worried that because the problem is not always there and obviously
>we don't know what's causing it, they might turn up at a time when the
>cause wasn't there, and as we know, the signal is perfectly fine otherwise.
>
>> Have or can you post a pix somewhere of the aerial, where its located
>> and a close up of it?..
>
>I'll see what I can do, but it's nothing particularly special: it looks
>like every other rooftop aerial on the street, and points in the same
>direction.
>
>I'm not an expert on this, but perhaps you can tell me: what sorts of tests
>could an expert carry out on the aerial and cable to either find or rule
>out any problem there, and would it just be a case of calling out someone
>who installs aerials or would we need another kind of specialist to do
>these tests?
Normally an aerial rigger can just check the signal level but
interference measurements and detection is another matter. Ask the
neighbours if they get any problems at all..that might for the moment be
your best bet....
>
>Cheers,
>Chris
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<pa...@NOSPAMcamtutor.co.uk> scribeth thus
Not my doin guv!, its those in charge of the BBC and Ofcom who should
take the blame for that!. They call it broadening listener choice or
some such bollockx...
--
Tony Sayer
Paul Bird
This is worse than I thought. I was quite convinced you'd write back
saying "no, no, no I mean 1080 lines at the old quality and therefore
some improvement by having a larger picture to watch at the same
resolution" but no, you've just gone along with what I said...
PB
The Natural Philosopher
intelligent shite.
R1 is lets pretend its really cool to be extremely stupid.
R2 is actually the best of the lot. We dont pretend to be smart, but
sometimes we are...meanwhile, here's some decent music for you.
R3 is V good if its your bag.
R5LSX is brill for cricket! Never mind the cricket, the anecdotes and
chitchat are beyond compare.,.where do they find these characters?
And there's that radio 7 or 8 channel?..old plays. Superb.
Paul Bird
<snip>
>> Especially R4 is especially NOT ok. If I have to listen to another
>> feature on what Mandelson/Campbell or that arse Trevor Phillips is up
>> to today, I'll stop paying the license.
> R4 is pure gay lefty lesbian asian minority lets pretend we are
> intelligent shite.
If this wasn't so funny it would be tragic.
PB
<snip>
magwitch
And in the old days the quality of gays was a lot better - John Geilgud,
Derek Jarmen, Derek Jacobi, William Burroughs, Tennesee Williams - now
they just put on whoever the producer picked up in Old Compton St or the
gym the week before.
zulu
1. Get hold of a _long_ extension lead
2. Turn the whole house off.
3 Plug one end of the lead into your next door neihjbour's supply.
4. Plugthe other end into your TV .
If that doesn't work, you will just have several clocks to rest....but you
will have eliminated interferance from _your_ house.
--
�zulu� VIP
Paul Bird
Quentin Crisp, Kenneth Williams, Ian McKellern (spelling) still gets a
look in doesn't he?
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Your showin yer age a bit or two ;!....
--
Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher
Well it was meant to be funny.
But sadly, there is more than a grain of truth in it.
R4 represents minorities these days, not the mainstream.
Producers are allow to get away with massive bias, and it is clear what
cliques operate, and how, even without the information from people in
the media who work for them.
> PB
>
> <snip>
The Natural Philosopher
Exactly. You forgot Kenneth Williams.
I mean BECAUSE they are Gay, Asian, Female or whatever, we get these
totally substandard individuals with brains the size of peanuts parading
their prejudices as if they actually had some relevance.
And if you say 'purlease, FOAD' then of course BECAUSE they are
'minorities' you get accused of being anti whatever subgroup they belong to.
The Natural Philosopher
I've less time for McKellern than most actually.
Anyway it is not the nature of the characters on R4 so much as the
agenda its allowed to pursue.
Its is not supposed to have an agenda at all.
The Natural Philosopher
Indeed. Its only amongst the under 40's that its cooler to be a stupid
dumb piece of shit airhead than an intelligent educated thoughtful
person with some competence apart from managing to stay in the public
eye, for more than 15 minutes.
R2 has the greatest audience of any UK radio station. Its the only
mainstream one left worth listening too on the beeb. R4 is pretty much
throw the radio at the wall. Its pompous, self indulgent, patronising,
and totally biassed.
From being te place where you could always find something of interest,
its now so dumbed down that its not worth listening to at all.
magwitch
Just after I'd posted I thought 'Kenneth Williams (!!!)"…
I used to draw QC in life classes when I was an art student. He used to
wear pale pink pearly nail varnish and that was all apart from his jock
strap.
And I also forgot David Hockney, who came to lecture us once - great guy
- wore odd socks.
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:husvne$9pq$1...@news.albasani.net...
> tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <hurejf$sq$1...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
>> <t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>snip>>>>>
>> Your showin yer age a bit or two ;!....
>
> Indeed. Its only amongst the under 40's that its cooler to be a stupid
> dumb piece of shit airhead than an intelligent educated thoughtful person
> with some competence apart from managing to stay in the public eye, for
> more than 15 minutes.
>
> R2 has the greatest audience of any UK radio station. Its the only
> mainstream one left worth listening too on the beeb. R4 is pretty much
> throw the radio at the wall. Its pompous, self indulgent, patronising, and
> totally biassed.
>
> From being te place where you could always find something of interest, its
> now so dumbed down that its not worth listening to at all.
>
Now I'll show _my_ age...<g>
Bring back The Home Service, The Light Programme and The Third Programme.
Ditch the rest....sorted!
Those really _were_ the days.
The wireless (aka radio) has never been the same since R1 - R99 are a poor
substitute
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"magwitch" <magw...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:hut0bb$ahn$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Paul Bird wrote:
>> magwitch wrote:
>>> Paul Bird wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Especially R4 is especially NOT ok. If I have to listen to another
>>>>>> feature on what Mandelson/Campbell or that arse Trevor Phillips is up
>>>>>> to today, I'll stop paying the license.
>>>>> R4 is pure gay lefty lesbian asian minority lets pretend we are
>>>>> intelligent shite.
>>>>
>>>> If this wasn't so funny it would be tragic.
>>>>
>>>> PB
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> And in the old days the quality of gays was a lot better - John Geilgud,
>>> Derek Jarmen, Derek Jacobi, William Burroughs, Tennesee Williams - now
>>> they just put on whoever the producer picked up in Old Compton St or the
>>> gym the week before.
>>
>> Quentin Crisp, Kenneth Williams, Ian McKellern (spelling) still gets a
>> look in doesn't he?
>
>
> I used to draw QC in life classes when I was an art student. He used to
> wear pale pink pearly nail varnish and that was all apart from his jock
> strap.
>
> And I also forgot David Hockney, who came to lecture us once - great guy -
> wore odd socks.
>
I had odd socks on the other day, one was dark blue and t'other was grey...
I didn't realise until my wife said they were *very fetching* and did I know
I had another pair the same in the sock drawer!
--
ŽzuluŽ VIP
magwitch
> "magwitch" <magw...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:hut0bb$ahn$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Paul Bird wrote:
>>> magwitch wrote:
>>>> Paul Bird wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Especially R4 is especially NOT ok. If I have to listen to another
>>>>>>> feature on what Mandelson/Campbell or that arse Trevor Phillips is up
>>>>>>> to today, I'll stop paying the license.
>>>>>> R4 is pure gay lefty lesbian asian minority lets pretend we are
>>>>>> intelligent shite.
>>>>> If this wasn't so funny it would be tragic.
>>>>>
>>>>> PB
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> And in the old days the quality of gays was a lot better - John Geilgud,
>>>> Derek Jarmen, Derek Jacobi, William Burroughs, Tennesee Williams - now
>>>> they just put on whoever the producer picked up in Old Compton St or the
>>>> gym the week before.
>>> Quentin Crisp, Kenneth Williams, Ian McKellern (spelling) still gets a
>>> look in doesn't he?
>>
>> I used to draw QC in life classes when I was an art student. He used to
>> wear pale pink pearly nail varnish and that was all apart from his jock
>> strap.
>>
>> And I also forgot David Hockney, who came to lecture us once - great guy -
>> wore odd socks.
>>
>
> I had odd socks on the other day, one was dark blue and t'other was grey...
> I didn't realise until my wife said they were *very fetching* and did I know
> I had another pair the same in the sock drawer!
>
>
>
Hockney's were deliberately mismatched - bright orange and bright green
- made all the more 'arty' by the rest of his outfit which was corduroy
trousers and a tweed jacket, sort of a contrast thing.
tony sayer
ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
Waah!, Raw nerve being hit there somewhere. So Radio 3 isn't that much
cop anymore then;?....
--
Tony Sayer
zulu
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:isV7VOT$umEM...@bancom.co.uk...
TBH, I gave it up (mostly) when ClassicFM started..
<yes, I know...>
I think R3 is little different than it used to be.
It's the old Light Programme that I really miss.
R2 is OK, but it's no substitute.
--
ŚzuluŚ VIP
Steve
> Nope. Inherent in the transmitted bit rates . Remember broadcasting
> these days is quantity over quality;(...
Doesn't that pretty much apply to everything in life, these days?
Cwatters
> In article <-oidnWy5LcHwJY3R...@brightview.co.uk>, Cwatters
> <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> scribeth thus>>news:gPmdnaG3HPxCN43R...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in
>>> message news:29OdnSlf2sWSN43R...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Cwatters" <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:x-CdnZHMH9ycP43R...@brightview.co.uk...>>>>>> Tried a re scan?..
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I have. Twice on two boxes (same make) but both times were in the
>>>>> evening.
>>>>
>>>> Ha. It fooled me, I thought CBeebies in the same Mux was ok but now I
>>>> look again I see when enter ch 71 for CBeebies it actually switches to
>>>> CBBC on 70 because CBeebies is also missing. Not being a fan of those
>>>> channels I didn't notice the difference.
>>>>
>>>> Seems all of Mux B is missing which is obviously much easier to explain
>>>> as it's the difficult mux. Checked the signal strength and quality and
>>>> both on zero. Bit odd as I have a pretty good installation here. New
>>>> three years ago and been pretty perfect ever since.
>>>>
>>>> Will have to go check the aerial, see if some loft insulation has
>>>> fallen
>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>>> Colin
>>>
>>> PS. Yes I know a loft aerial isn't good practice.
>>>
>>
>>Humm. Looks like the signal strength has fallen since we put our aerial
>>in.
>>Three years ago was getting 80% or more on all mux. Today Mux B was down
>>to
>>about 40%. May have to move the aerial outside after all.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> leaf in the direction of the TX?...
>
>
> Or has it fallen over .. literally..
> --
> Tony Sayer
>
I set it up in winter when no leaves on the trees so that probably accounts
for a lot of it. We are looking through a few trees next door.
Noticed something about the rescan process... If I rescan while the signal
strength happens to be on the low side it fails to detect the channel at all
and deletes it from the channel list. However if I rescan when the signal is
slightly higher it's detected ok. Once detected, when the signal strenght
falls again the resulting recieption is still pretty good. Looks like my
Philips box has a high threshold for what it deems watchable during the
channel set up process. Can live with that till next year.
tony sayer
>> leaf in the direction of the TX?...
>>
>>
>> Or has it fallen over .. literally..
>> --
>> Tony Sayer
>>
>
>I set it up in winter when no leaves on the trees so that probably accounts
>for a lot of it. We are looking through a few trees next door.
>
>Noticed something about the rescan process... If I rescan while the signal
>strength happens to be on the low side it fails to detect the channel at all
>and deletes it from the channel list. However if I rescan when the signal is
>slightly higher it's detected ok. Once detected, when the signal strenght
>falls again the resulting recieption is still pretty good. Looks like my
>Philips box has a high threshold for what it deems watchable during the
>channel set up process. Can live with that till next year.
>
>
>
poor thing;)...
--
Tony Sayer
drall...@gmail.com
> Hi all,
>
> For the last three nights, we have seen our Freeview reception drop from no
> visible/audible flaws to a very broken signal (strength around 70%, but
> quality dropping from normally 100% to as low as 60% in bursts).
>
> This has just started again (20:45 on Wednesday) and seems to be happening
> at almost the same time every night, and then continuing until some time
> after we go to bed but fine again by the morning. During the daytime and
> early evening, the signal has been perfectly normal every day, no
> observable disruption at all.
>
> I know there are always questions about things like atmospheric
> interference or damp, but this seems too black and white to be something
> like that. I'm thinking either there is maintenance work going on at the
> transmitter that is killing the signal, or someone nearby is using
> something that is generating horrendous amounts of interference.
>
> Does anyone know of anything that might explain this? It's really annoying
> that things start going bad around peak time every night.
>
> If there is someone causing this much interference, I would have thought
> that would be breaking all kinds of rules, but what does one do about it?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> --
> My name isn't really Chris Jones, but I play him on Usenet.
Chris.
I get exactly the same problems on my Freeview, channels 11, 12, 54,etc and it really annoys me. Somebody is doing something around the Chatham area (Bluebell Hill) that stops me from watching freeview. The normal 5 channels are OK, but I keep losing the interesting programmes that I like watching. Sometimes it happens for only half an hour, and sometimes all night. In the morning it is fine with 100% signal strength and 100% quality. I think that the interference is from 5G!!!
drall...@gmail.com
> Hi all,
>
> For the last three nights, we have seen our Freeview reception drop from no
> visible/audible flaws to a very broken signal (strength around 70%, but
> quality dropping from normally 100% to as low as 60% in bursts).
>
> This has just started again (20:45 on Wednesday) and seems to be happening
> at almost the same time every night, and then continuing until some time
> after we go to bed but fine again by the morning. During the daytime and
> early evening, the signal has been perfectly normal every day, no
> observable disruption at all.
>
> I know there are always questions about things like atmospheric
> interference or damp, but this seems too black and white to be something
> like that. I'm thinking either there is maintenance work going on at the
> transmitter that is killing the signal, or someone nearby is using
> something that is generating horrendous amounts of interference.
>
> Does anyone know of anything that might explain this? It's really annoying
> that things start going bad around peak time every night.
>
> If there is someone causing this much interference, I would have thought
> that would be breaking all kinds of rules, but what does one do about it?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
> --
> My name isn't really Chris Jones, but I play him on Usenet.
Peter
> I reckon it is caused by 5G. This has pappened to me over the last three nights as well.We need to sort out the 5G transmitters.
>
tony sayer
<peterxp...@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
thickies we've become!, almost medieval ages in outlook. I'm sure given
half a chance they'd be burning witches again!..
As to the TV reception very simple, have you got the right type of
aerial and where is it mounted?, as in and around Cambridge you
shouldn't have any problems with TV reception these days...
--
Tony Sayer
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
Vir Campestris
> On Wednesday, 9 June 2010 20:56:11 UTC+1, Chris Jones wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
> I reckon it is caused by 5G. This has pappened to me over the last three nights as well.We need to sort out the 5G transmitters.
>
Andy