Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
the wacky world of post-DSO chalk-face service.
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Wright
Oct 20, 2011, 9:47:58 PM10/20/11
to
A village on a hill in S Yorks. A house near the church. The trees
around the churchyard obstruct Emley. So, from a good quality Emley
aerial, we have:
The Emley muxes very strong but ranging across 12dB
The Belmont muxes very strong, almost as strong as the strongest Emley
Waltham is roaring in
Crosspool is present but has that odd 'toothed mux effect' that you get
when there's a strong reflection.
A bit of Sutton C.
The customer's complaint? He used to be able to get Tyne Tees. Now the
analogue TT is submerged totally under a Waltham mux which is supposedly
still on low power. His other complaint: Peter Levy, and also E Midlands
stuff.
To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
only, it took:
a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory agree)
a 10dB atten at the amp input
a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
screened flyleads throughout.
One bedroom telly tuned itself to Belmont, and when I unplugged the
cheap flylead from the wall Peter continued to ramble regardless.
Fucking hell, this is a whole new ball game.
There was white set top DTT box in one room that worked fine except the
colour flashed rhythmically on/off. Never seen that before. OSGs were
OK. Binned the box.
After the farce of the old telly (see elsewhere) we came to Wickersley.
Two old ladies who have buried their hubbies and decided to club
together for a fab flat and a nice Volvo. Excellent. 88 years old and
still on the internet hounding the council and the NHS. Anyway, they
bought a non-HD Humax DVB-T recorder from Richer Sounds for £140 and the
programme guide didn't work and reception was stop-start so they took it
back and Richer Sounds cheerfully swapped it. But the new one was the
same. Could Bill certify the signal was OK before they demanded their
money back?
I fitted the inevitable bandpass filter and attenuator and sure enough
almost all channels disappeared. They'd been derived from sources other
than Emley. A factory reset and the thing seemed to work much better,
but the EPG was very slow to populate.I explained that it was best to
not turn the mains off at the wall (they'd been doing this for all hours
except viewing hours). I'll ring them next week and see how they're
getting on with it.
At Pilley I was surprised to see the Emley muxes at +32dBmV from a ten
element aerial. That's a lot of signal! Wonder if we could charge
batteries from the aerial? How come the greenies haven't got hold of
this? Charge your phone from the evil capitalist television
transmissions! I reckon if we built a big parabola facing Emley we could
cook a goose with it.
Bill
around the churchyard obstruct Emley. So, from a good quality Emley
aerial, we have:
The Emley muxes very strong but ranging across 12dB
The Belmont muxes very strong, almost as strong as the strongest Emley
Waltham is roaring in
Crosspool is present but has that odd 'toothed mux effect' that you get
when there's a strong reflection.
A bit of Sutton C.
The customer's complaint? He used to be able to get Tyne Tees. Now the
analogue TT is submerged totally under a Waltham mux which is supposedly
still on low power. His other complaint: Peter Levy, and also E Midlands
stuff.
To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
only, it took:
a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory agree)
a 10dB atten at the amp input
a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
screened flyleads throughout.
One bedroom telly tuned itself to Belmont, and when I unplugged the
cheap flylead from the wall Peter continued to ramble regardless.
Fucking hell, this is a whole new ball game.
There was white set top DTT box in one room that worked fine except the
colour flashed rhythmically on/off. Never seen that before. OSGs were
OK. Binned the box.
After the farce of the old telly (see elsewhere) we came to Wickersley.
Two old ladies who have buried their hubbies and decided to club
together for a fab flat and a nice Volvo. Excellent. 88 years old and
still on the internet hounding the council and the NHS. Anyway, they
bought a non-HD Humax DVB-T recorder from Richer Sounds for £140 and the
programme guide didn't work and reception was stop-start so they took it
back and Richer Sounds cheerfully swapped it. But the new one was the
same. Could Bill certify the signal was OK before they demanded their
money back?
I fitted the inevitable bandpass filter and attenuator and sure enough
almost all channels disappeared. They'd been derived from sources other
than Emley. A factory reset and the thing seemed to work much better,
but the EPG was very slow to populate.I explained that it was best to
not turn the mains off at the wall (they'd been doing this for all hours
except viewing hours). I'll ring them next week and see how they're
getting on with it.
At Pilley I was surprised to see the Emley muxes at +32dBmV from a ten
element aerial. That's a lot of signal! Wonder if we could charge
batteries from the aerial? How come the greenies haven't got hold of
this? Charge your phone from the evil capitalist television
transmissions! I reckon if we built a big parabola facing Emley we could
cook a goose with it.
Bill
Brian Gaff
Oct 21, 2011, 12:53:53 AM10/21/11
to
So this Peter character is really bad is he? or is this just a regional
thing, ie my presenter is crap etc. Seems to me the ay things are going the
so called local opt outs will all be in one studio soon in any case.
Incidentally the switchover stuff from that loverly switchover help scheme
have started to arrive in homes in London this week. I have my nice shiny
CD.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7qj0j$eum$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
thing, ie my presenter is crap etc. Seems to me the ay things are going the
so called local opt outs will all be in one studio soon in any case.
Incidentally the switchover stuff from that loverly switchover help scheme
have started to arrive in homes in London this week. I have my nice shiny
CD.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7qj0j$eum$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
Oct 21, 2011, 8:49:06 AM10/21/11
to
On Oct 21, 2:47 am, Bill Wright <b...@invalid.com> wrote:
> One bedroom telly tuned itself to Belmont, and when I unplugged the
> cheap flylead from the wall Peter continued to ramble regardless.
I guess you've got to consider yourself lucky to be working in a part
> One bedroom telly tuned itself to Belmont, and when I unplugged the
> cheap flylead from the wall Peter continued to ramble regardless.
of the world where the "local" transmissions are so hated. It seems
most of the people you talk about wouldn't need an aerial installer
(or even a roof-top aerial) if they didn't watch BBC local news!
I'm going to have to try Yorks-East on freesat to see what's so bad
about it. Is it hated because, until 2002, those viewers had a
different service which most were perfectly happy with? Is it
personality, or editorial area vs reception area, that's the problem?
Cheers,
David.
Bill Wright
Oct 21, 2011, 9:05:17 AM10/21/11
to
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> I guess you've got to consider yourself lucky to be working in a part
> of the world where the "local" transmissions are so hated. It seems
> most of the people you talk about wouldn't need an aerial installer
> (or even a roof-top aerial) if they didn't watch BBC local news!
I think you're right. Luckily I know how to clean windows...
> I guess you've got to consider yourself lucky to be working in a part
> of the world where the "local" transmissions are so hated. It seems
> most of the people you talk about wouldn't need an aerial installer
> (or even a roof-top aerial) if they didn't watch BBC local news!
>
> I'm going to have to try Yorks-East on freesat to see what's so bad
> about it. Is it hated because, until 2002, those viewers had a
> different service which most were perfectly happy with? Is it
> personality, or editorial area vs reception area, that's the problem?
Bill
Woody
Oct 21, 2011, 1:17:28 PM10/21/11
to
Brian,
He isn't known as the Lovely Peter Levy for nothing!
--
Woody
harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j7qtt4$gkh$1...@dont-email.me...
The Other Mike
Oct 21, 2011, 2:48:47 PM10/21/11
to
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:49:06 -0700 (PDT),
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk>
wrote:
Luckily in recent years I've only experienced a few seconds of Peter
Levy but while he's a smarmy git the channel opt out is probably of
the same standard of local TV experienced elsewhere in the country.
But it isn't Christa Ackroyd, Harry Gration and Paul Hudson and that
REALLY matters. Plus we wake up to Keeley Donovan* doing the weather.
Pure Yorkshire, from Emley, really is TV Nirvana, which is something
that can't *ever* be said about Belmont.
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyorkslincs/content/articles/2008/06/12/keeleydonovan_feature.shtml
--
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk>
wrote:
Levy but while he's a smarmy git the channel opt out is probably of
the same standard of local TV experienced elsewhere in the country.
But it isn't Christa Ackroyd, Harry Gration and Paul Hudson and that
REALLY matters. Plus we wake up to Keeley Donovan* doing the weather.
Pure Yorkshire, from Emley, really is TV Nirvana, which is something
that can't *ever* be said about Belmont.
*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyorkslincs/content/articles/2008/06/12/keeleydonovan_feature.shtml
--
Rick
Oct 21, 2011, 3:03:35 PM10/21/11
to
"Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message
news:JOhoq.1366$wT6....@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> Brian,
> He isn't known as the Lovely Peter Levy for nothing!
>
>
Is he the kind of bloke who doesn't mince his words, or does he?
> Brian,
> He isn't known as the Lovely Peter Levy for nothing!
>
>
J G Miller
Oct 21, 2011, 3:33:14 PM10/21/11
to
On Friday, October 21st, 2011 at 19:48:47h +0100, The Other Mike wrote:
> Luckily in recent years I've only experienced a few seconds of Peter Levy
Everybody seems to be forgetting that Peter Levy was a presenter on
> Luckily in recent years I've only experienced a few seconds of Peter Levy
Look North Leeds for many years, before he became anchor of Look North
Kingston-Upon-Hull in 2002.
I do not recall people complaining about him back then.
Woody
Oct 21, 2011, 5:13:26 PM10/21/11
to
"Rick" <ri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:j7sfj6$79l$1...@dont-email.me...
news:j7sfj6$79l$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:JOhoq.1366$wT6....@newsfe14.ams2...
>>
>> Brian,
>> He isn't known as the Lovely Peter Levy for nothing!
>>
>>
>
> Is he the kind of bloke who doesn't mince his words, or does
> he?
>
I think 'mince' is the operative word there!
> "Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:JOhoq.1366$wT6....@newsfe14.ams2...
>>
>> Brian,
>> He isn't known as the Lovely Peter Levy for nothing!
>>
>>
>
> Is he the kind of bloke who doesn't mince his words, or does
> he?
>
Brian Gaff
Oct 21, 2011, 5:34:02 PM10/21/11
to
Oh dear, as I suspected, puns are about again.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
Brian Gaff
Oct 21, 2011, 5:35:58 PM10/21/11
to
Cod?
are there any left?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
are there any left?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7rqmi$8r7$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Graham.
Oct 21, 2011, 5:37:00 PM10/21/11
to
"Bill Wright" wrote in message news:j7qj0j$eum$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Basically a crystal set set tuned to Droitwich 1500 meters that powered a
one transistor
MW receiver.
The design was from a book of circuits, probably one one of Clive Sinclair's
as published by Bernard Bababani
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Graham.
Oct 21, 2011, 6:19:29 PM10/21/11
to
Bill Wright
Oct 21, 2011, 9:42:24 PM10/21/11
to
Bill
Bill Wright
Oct 21, 2011, 9:45:22 PM10/21/11
to
Graham. wrote:
> I built something like that when I was at school.
> Basically a crystal set set tuned to Droitwich 1500 meters that powered
> a one transistor
> MW receiver.
> The design was from a book of circuits, probably one one of Clive
> Sinclair's as published by Bernard Bababani
I think you mean Bernard Babababanani. I too read his books and
> I built something like that when I was at school.
> Basically a crystal set set tuned to Droitwich 1500 meters that powered
> a one transistor
> MW receiver.
> The design was from a book of circuits, probably one one of Clive
> Sinclair's as published by Bernard Bababani
attempted to imitate his stammer.
Bill
Woody
Oct 22, 2011, 2:25:22 AM10/22/11
to
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7t77p$mn0$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
1500M!!
Ian Jackson
Oct 22, 2011, 3:18:06 AM10/22/11
to
In message <nltoq.4492$eC4....@newsfe16.ams2>, Woody
<harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> writes
Why not? I've got a receiver which does the opposite, ie it picks up MW
signals on the LW.
--
Ian
<harro...@ntlworld.spam.com> writes
signals on the LW.
--
Ian
Brian Gaff
Oct 22, 2011, 4:10:07 AM10/22/11
to
I built something from one of those, a constant volume amplifier. Basically
an auto level control. The broadcasters need these nowadays I think.
an auto level control. The broadcasters need these nowadays I think.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
Brian Gaff
Oct 22, 2011, 4:13:37 AM10/22/11
to
Some of the recent presenters on local radio seem to be of two main types.
Competent but very boring, or full of themselves and smarmy. Is there some
school somewhere that produces these, or is it that the people hiring are
just plain daft?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Other Mike" <rootpa...@somewhereorother.com> wrote in message
news:mif3a7h1e4i6oecrq...@4ax.com...
Competent but very boring, or full of themselves and smarmy. Is there some
school somewhere that produces these, or is it that the people hiring are
just plain daft?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
news:mif3a7h1e4i6oecrq...@4ax.com...
Brian Gaff
Oct 22, 2011, 4:14:30 AM10/22/11
to
Maybe they see him as a traitor?
news:j7shdp$fr7$1...@dont-email.me...
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
news:j7shdp$fr7$1...@dont-email.me...
Stephen
Oct 22, 2011, 5:23:16 AM10/22/11
to
snipped.
> To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
> only, it took:
>
> a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
> gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory
> agree)
> a 10dB atten at the amp input
> a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
> a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
> screened flyleads throughout.
>
snipped.
Bill, I thought it was bad practice to attenuate a signal before amplifying?
Was it because the input signal was too high for the amp and thus provide
intermodulation products on the amp's output? If the signal was that high,
why the amplifer? surely the johannson 37-52 filter would have been
adequate?
Also the use of 6dB filters at each TV suggests that the amplifer gain could
be decreased or changed for a lower gain model? Was it becuase you needed to
ensure the wanted signals in the co-ax were stronger than the ambient
signals that the co-ax picked up in the house walls, and hence the 6dB atten
at the end of the cable dropped the ambient signals to below the reciever's
threshold but the wanted amplified Emley signals remained above it?
Purely out of interest, What did the customer say when you presented them
with the bill? And did you have to replace the drop cables from the amp to
all the wall plates?
Stephen
> To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
> only, it took:
>
> a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
> gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory
> agree)
> a 10dB atten at the amp input
> a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
> a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
> screened flyleads throughout.
>
Bill, I thought it was bad practice to attenuate a signal before amplifying?
Was it because the input signal was too high for the amp and thus provide
intermodulation products on the amp's output? If the signal was that high,
why the amplifer? surely the johannson 37-52 filter would have been
adequate?
Also the use of 6dB filters at each TV suggests that the amplifer gain could
be decreased or changed for a lower gain model? Was it becuase you needed to
ensure the wanted signals in the co-ax were stronger than the ambient
signals that the co-ax picked up in the house walls, and hence the 6dB atten
at the end of the cable dropped the ambient signals to below the reciever's
threshold but the wanted amplified Emley signals remained above it?
Purely out of interest, What did the customer say when you presented them
with the bill? And did you have to replace the drop cables from the amp to
all the wall plates?
Stephen
Stephen
Oct 22, 2011, 5:29:26 AM10/22/11
to
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7qj0j$eum$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>A village on a hill in S Yorks. A house near the church. The trees around
>the churchyard obstruct Emley. So, from a good quality Emley aerial, we
>have:
>
> The Emley muxes very strong but ranging across 12dB
> The Belmont muxes very strong, almost as strong as the strongest Emley
> Waltham is roaring in
> Crosspool is present but has that odd 'toothed mux effect' that you get
> when there's a strong reflection.
> A bit of Sutton C.
>
> The customer's complaint? He used to be able to get Tyne Tees. Now the
> analogue TT is submerged totally under a Waltham mux which is supposedly
> still on low power. His other complaint: Peter Levy, and also E Midlands
> stuff.
>
Perhaps another technical solution would be to leave the Freeview as it was
>the churchyard obstruct Emley. So, from a good quality Emley aerial, we
>have:
>
> The Emley muxes very strong but ranging across 12dB
> The Belmont muxes very strong, almost as strong as the strongest Emley
> Waltham is roaring in
> Crosspool is present but has that odd 'toothed mux effect' that you get
> when there's a strong reflection.
> A bit of Sutton C.
>
> The customer's complaint? He used to be able to get Tyne Tees. Now the
> analogue TT is submerged totally under a Waltham mux which is supposedly
> still on low power. His other complaint: Peter Levy, and also E Midlands
> stuff.
>
(assuming satisfactory reception, install two freesat boxes in loft set to
the customers preferred regional BBC1 and regional ITV1 channels and present
that as two analogue channels on their distribution system. Very much like
much like your DTT to analogue scheme for the gym you mentioned elsewhere?
Obviously, there may be no stereo and that it assumes that all TV's still
had an analogue tuner......
Stephen.
Phil Cook
Oct 22, 2011, 7:21:18 AM10/22/11
to
On 22/10/2011 09:13, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Some of the recent presenters on local radio seem to be of two main types.
> Competent but very boring, or full of themselves and smarmy.
What worse is if one of the latter flavour London ones gets onto
> Some of the recent presenters on local radio seem to be of two main types.
> Competent but very boring, or full of themselves and smarmy.
national radio. Thankfully she's off on hollibobs at the moment so I can
wake up to Aled Jones rather than leaping for the off button at 5.00am.
--
Phil Cook
Bill Wright
Oct 22, 2011, 10:00:55 AM10/22/11
to
Stephen wrote:
> snipped.
>
>> To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
>> only, it took:
>>
>> a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
>> gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory
>> agree)
>> a 10dB atten at the amp input
>> a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
>> a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
>> screened flyleads throughout.
>>
> snipped.
>
> Bill, I thought it was bad practice to attenuate a signal before amplifying?
It's very bad practice to attenuate to the point where the amplifier's
> snipped.
>
>> To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
>> only, it took:
>>
>> a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
>> gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory
>> agree)
>> a 10dB atten at the amp input
>> a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
>> a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
>> screened flyleads throughout.
>>
> snipped.
>
> Bill, I thought it was bad practice to attenuate a signal before amplifying?
noise becomes significant.
> Was it because the input signal was too high for the amp and thus provide
> intermodulation products on the amp's output? If the signal was that high,
> why the amplifer? surely the johannson 37-52 filter would have been
> adequate?
mean that (for instance) an eight-way amplifier could be replaced by an
eight-way splitter. The receivers would then be presented with signals
12 + cable loss dB below the aerial signals, which in many cases would
be about right.
However in this case the downleads were long and the overall loss would
have been a bit risky.
The other thing is that in order to improve immunity to the ingress of
unwanted signals on the cables, outlets, etc, it's better to attenuate
at the receiver rather than have the levels on the cables too low to
allow that.
I don't think we need worry too much about worsening the c/n ratio by
having a good quality low gain amp in the chain.
Bill
>
> Also the use of 6dB filters at each TV suggests that the amplifer gain could
> be decreased or changed for a lower gain model? Was it becuase you needed to
> ensure the wanted signals in the co-ax were stronger than the ambient
> signals that the co-ax picked up in the house walls, and hence the 6dB atten
> at the end of the cable dropped the ambient signals to below the reciever's
> threshold but the wanted amplified Emley signals remained above it?
>
> Purely out of interest, What did the customer say when you presented them
> with the bill?
'Thanks for mending the cooker by the way.' (seriously; long story) and
> Purely out of interest, What did the customer say when you presented them
> with the bill?
then 'Do you want another cup of tea before you go?'
And did you have to replace the drop cables from the amp to
> all the wall plates?
friendly' though.
Your points are very good, and I think we are on a learning curve in
this new post-DSO world.
Bill
>
> Stephen
>
>
Stephen
Oct 22, 2011, 12:32:52 PM10/22/11
to
news:j7uiat$l8b$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
1. log periodic
2. 10dB atten
3. johansson 37-52 filter
4. amplifier/distribution splitter
5. cable drops
6. 6dB atten
7, TV set
I fully appreciate the point you've made behind the 6dB atten at the TV's
input, but you have a 10dB atten between the log period and the amplifier,
so you're attenuating before amplifying....
The lowest gain amp I see tends to be 13dB, so with most amps having a noise
figure of 2 to 3dB minimum, and with that 10dB attenuator, wouldn't the
effect of attenuating by 10dB and then amplifying by 13dB with anoise figure
of 2+ dB cancel each other out and therefore worsen the system performance?
Perhaps you meant to say the 10dB atten was after the amp rather than
before?
In which case wouldn't a 15dB atten at the TV inputs have given you more
immunity against the ambient signals being picked up by the drop cables?
Stephen
> Stephen wrote:
>> snipped.
>>
>>> To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
>>> only, it took:
>>>
>>> a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
>>> gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory
>>> agree)
>>> a 10dB atten at the amp input
>>> a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
>>> a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
>>> screened flyleads throughout.
>>>
>> snipped.
>>
>> Bill, I thought it was bad practice to attenuate a signal before
>> amplifying?
> It's very bad practice to attenuate to the point where the amplifier's
> noise becomes significant.
OK, so if I've read your OP correctly, the system starts as:
>> snipped.
>>
>>> To provide all the tellys with signals that enabled them to tune Emley
>>> only, it took:
>>>
>>> a log periodic on a 12ft mast (surprising the extra discrimination this
>>> gave against Belmont, at about 180 deg. Nice when practice and theory
>>> agree)
>>> a 10dB atten at the amp input
>>> a johansson 37-52 filter at the amp input
>>> a 6dB attenuator on each TV input
>>> screened flyleads throughout.
>>>
>> snipped.
>>
>> Bill, I thought it was bad practice to attenuate a signal before
>> amplifying?
> It's very bad practice to attenuate to the point where the amplifier's
> noise becomes significant.
1. log periodic
2. 10dB atten
3. johansson 37-52 filter
4. amplifier/distribution splitter
5. cable drops
6. 6dB atten
7, TV set
I fully appreciate the point you've made behind the 6dB atten at the TV's
input, but you have a 10dB atten between the log period and the amplifier,
so you're attenuating before amplifying....
The lowest gain amp I see tends to be 13dB, so with most amps having a noise
figure of 2 to 3dB minimum, and with that 10dB attenuator, wouldn't the
effect of attenuating by 10dB and then amplifying by 13dB with anoise figure
of 2+ dB cancel each other out and therefore worsen the system performance?
Perhaps you meant to say the 10dB atten was after the amp rather than
before?
In which case wouldn't a 15dB atten at the TV inputs have given you more
immunity against the ambient signals being picked up by the drop cables?
Stephen
Bill Wright
Oct 22, 2011, 2:33:01 PM10/22/11
to
Stephen wrote:
> I fully appreciate the point you've made behind the 6dB atten at the TV's
> input, but you have a 10dB atten between the log period and the amplifier,
> so you're attenuating before amplifying....
It's a very good point, and I could have removed the amp and fitted a
> I fully appreciate the point you've made behind the 6dB atten at the TV's
> input, but you have a 10dB atten between the log period and the amplifier,
> so you're attenuating before amplifying....
splitter. It would have been risky though.
1.The Emley signals were obstructed by tress which at this time of the
year don't have as much effect as they do when they are fully in leaf,
so it's quite possible that the amp might be needed as soon as next summer.
2. The signal levels from the aerial were only obtained by putting it
6ft higher than previously. There was a large difference between the
signal levels at the two aerial heights. Past experience suggests that
over the next few years the trees might well grown and thicken enough to
cause the signal levels to drop, and I can't get the aerial any higher.
3. The guy was talking in a vague way about having satellite. He's
recently retired due to ill health and is watching a lot of telly. If he
does get Sky he will very likely want the signal feeding to all the
tellys. That would mean an amp would be needed. As it happens the amp
was put in when the house was built and is remote-eye capable.
Interestingly the builders also put four spare coaxes from the loft to
living room and terminated them behind a blank plate. Impressive.
4. Once an amp is installed I'm not going to be in a hurry to remove it.
There's no real practical reason to do so.
>
> The lowest gain amp I see tends to be 13dB, so with most amps having a noise
> figure of 2 to 3dB minimum, and with that 10dB attenuator, wouldn't the
> effect of attenuating by 10dB and then amplifying by 13dB with anoise figure
> of 2+ dB cancel each other out and therefore worsen the system performance?
like 60dB at the aerial it really doesn't matter.
Bill
Stephen
Oct 22, 2011, 3:14:20 PM10/22/11
to
news:j7v291$uqu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
call from the house owner complaining of lost/pixellating TV channels.....
at this point you would tell them to temporarily remove the 10dB
attenuator....and then come the autumn, another irate call* complaining ot
Peter Levy, and then you tell them to put the attenuator back in then?
* caused by the house owner doing a retune in response to a message on the
Freeview TV's saying "New channels found, please retune" etc.......
>> The lowest gain amp I see tends to be 13dB, so with most amps having a
>> noise figure of 2 to 3dB minimum, and with that 10dB attenuator, wouldn't
>> the effect of attenuating by 10dB and then amplifying by 13dB with anoise
>> figure of 2+ dB cancel each other out and therefore worsen the system
>> performance?
> The amp would worsen the c/n figure by 2-3dB, but when it's something like
> 60dB at the aerial it really doesn't matter.
>
fair enough.... in the context of tree foliage as mentioned.....
Stephen.
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> I fully appreciate the point you've made behind the 6dB atten at the TV's
>> input, but you have a 10dB atten between the log period and the
>> amplifier, so you're attenuating before amplifying....
>
> It's a very good point, and I could have removed the amp and fitted a
> splitter. It would have been risky though.
>
> 1.The Emley signals were obstructed by tress which at this time of the
> year don't have as much effect as they do when they are fully in leaf, so
> it's quite possible that the amp might be needed as soon as next summer.
>
> 2. The signal levels from the aerial were only obtained by putting it 6ft
> higher than previously. There was a large difference between the signal
> levels at the two aerial heights. Past experience suggests that over the
> next few years the trees might well grown and thicken enough to cause the
> signal levels to drop, and I can't get the aerial any higher.
>
>
>
>> I fully appreciate the point you've made behind the 6dB atten at the TV's
>> input, but you have a 10dB atten between the log period and the
>> amplifier, so you're attenuating before amplifying....
>
> It's a very good point, and I could have removed the amp and fitted a
> splitter. It would have been risky though.
>
> 1.The Emley signals were obstructed by tress which at this time of the
> year don't have as much effect as they do when they are fully in leaf, so
> it's quite possible that the amp might be needed as soon as next summer.
>
> 2. The signal levels from the aerial were only obtained by putting it 6ft
> higher than previously. There was a large difference between the signal
> levels at the two aerial heights. Past experience suggests that over the
> next few years the trees might well grown and thicken enough to cause the
> signal levels to drop, and I can't get the aerial any higher.
>
>
> 4. Once an amp is installed I'm not going to be in a hurry to remove it.
> There's no real practical reason to do so.
So when the trees are in full foliage next summer, won't you get a phone
> There's no real practical reason to do so.
call from the house owner complaining of lost/pixellating TV channels.....
at this point you would tell them to temporarily remove the 10dB
attenuator....and then come the autumn, another irate call* complaining ot
Peter Levy, and then you tell them to put the attenuator back in then?
* caused by the house owner doing a retune in response to a message on the
Freeview TV's saying "New channels found, please retune" etc.......
>> The lowest gain amp I see tends to be 13dB, so with most amps having a
>> noise figure of 2 to 3dB minimum, and with that 10dB attenuator, wouldn't
>> the effect of attenuating by 10dB and then amplifying by 13dB with anoise
>> figure of 2+ dB cancel each other out and therefore worsen the system
>> performance?
> The amp would worsen the c/n figure by 2-3dB, but when it's something like
> 60dB at the aerial it really doesn't matter.
>
Stephen.
Bill Wright
Oct 22, 2011, 3:36:29 PM10/22/11
to
Stephen wrote:
> So when the trees are in full foliage next summer, won't you get a phone
> call from the house owner complaining of lost/pixellating TV channels.....
> at this point you would tell them to temporarily remove the 10dB
> attenuator....and then come the autumn, another irate call* complaining ot
> Peter Levy, and then you tell them to put the attenuator back in then?
The hope is that the very high signal levels currently delivered to the
> So when the trees are in full foliage next summer, won't you get a phone
> call from the house owner complaining of lost/pixellating TV channels.....
> at this point you would tell them to temporarily remove the 10dB
> attenuator....and then come the autumn, another irate call* complaining ot
> Peter Levy, and then you tell them to put the attenuator back in then?
TV sets will not drop so far that reception will be affected. But just
in case, the attenuator can be removed.
>
> * caused by the house owner doing a retune in response to a message on the
> Freeview TV's saying "New channels found, please retune" etc.......
Bill
Doctor D
Oct 22, 2011, 4:06:11 PM10/22/11
to
"Phil Cook" wrote in message news:9gfn9i...@mid.individual.net...
On my commute I used to be able to listen to the very good Alex Lester
followed by a switch to BBC Berks for the excellent Steve Madden.
Sadly, I don't reach BBC Berks reception until about 6am so have to listen
to a bit of Vanessa, although Faye Dicker on BBC Gloucestershire is growing
on me.
Stephen
Oct 22, 2011, 6:08:14 PM10/22/11
to
"Stephen" <i.wan...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:L9qdnYhkkupyET_T...@brightview.co.uk...
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7qj0j$eum$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>A village on a hill in S Yorks. A house near the church. The trees around
>the churchyard obstruct Emley. So, from a good quality Emley aerial, we
>have:
>
> The Emley muxes very strong but ranging across 12dB
> The Belmont muxes very strong, almost as strong as the strongest Emley
> Waltham is roaring in
> Crosspool is present but has that odd 'toothed mux effect' that you get
> when there's a strong reflection.
> A bit of Sutton C.
> The customer's complaint? He used to be able to get Tyne Tees. Now the
> analogue TT is submerged totally under a Waltham mux which is supposedly
> still on low power. His other complaint: Peter Levy, and also E Midlands
> stuff.
I've been looking up this Peter Levy, it appears that Look North is split
news:j7qj0j$eum$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>A village on a hill in S Yorks. A house near the church. The trees around
>the churchyard obstruct Emley. So, from a good quality Emley aerial, we
>have:
>
> The Emley muxes very strong but ranging across 12dB
> The Belmont muxes very strong, almost as strong as the strongest Emley
> Waltham is roaring in
> Crosspool is present but has that odd 'toothed mux effect' that you get
> when there's a strong reflection.
> A bit of Sutton C.
> The customer's complaint? He used to be able to get Tyne Tees. Now the
> analogue TT is submerged totally under a Waltham mux which is supposedly
> still on low power. His other complaint: Peter Levy, and also E Midlands
> stuff.
into two regions.
So as far as I can see, Emley Moor is Levy free but Belmot is
not...................
What about Bilsdale? Whats its status regarding this Peter Levy? that I
note that Bilsdale has yet to complete DSO.
Crosspool appears to be a relay of Emley so is Peter Levy free.......
So what is it about this Peter Levy that people find objectionable?
J G Miller
Oct 22, 2011, 6:43:26 PM10/22/11
to
On Saturday, October 23rd, 2011 at 23:08:14h +0100, Stephen wrote:
> I've been looking up this Peter Levy, it appears that Look North is
> split into two regions.
First there was Look North from Manchester, and then Look North from
> I've been looking up this Peter Levy, it appears that Look North is
> split into two regions.
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
Then in 1968, with the impending arrival of Yorkshire Television
and Calendar, the BBC decided that it had to compete, and split
Look North from Manchester into Look North from Leeds and a
rump Look North from Manchester.
Then in 2002, the BBC decided that it should split Look North
from Leeds into Look North from Kingston-Upon-Hull, and a rump
Look North from Leeds.
Look North from Newcastle-Upon-Tyne originally covered Cumbria,
but for a number of years that was switched to the renamed
Look North West which was renamed North West Tonight.
Viewers in Cumbria were not pleased with southern news from
Manchester and thus Cumbria was restored to Look North from
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
Since BBC management in Central London enforced a standard identikit
homogenous style for all regional news programs, stifling regional creativity
and diversity, all BBC Your Region Tonight programs look pretty
much the same nowadays, mostly red, and with the removal of the news
desk and replacement with a couch, the style is closer to Entertainment
Tonight rather than Eye Witness News.
See the degeneration in presentation over the past decade, and numerous
photographs of Harry Gration and Peter Levy at
<http://www2.tv-ark.org.UK/bbc_yorkshire/news.html>
Rick
Oct 23, 2011, 4:03:22 AM10/23/11
to
news:7bqdnbFFU4JYoz7T...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
> So what is it about this Peter Levy that people find objectionable?
>
>
Perhaps Freesat could enlighten us, what's the exact region?
>
> So what is it about this Peter Levy that people find objectionable?
>
>
Woody
Oct 23, 2011, 5:56:04 AM10/23/11
to
"Rick" <ri...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:j80hl6$irn$1...@dont-email.me...
Rick
Oct 23, 2011, 8:05:05 AM10/23/11
to
news:UwRoq.11717$ni4....@newsfe22.ams2...
Thanks, I'll give it a go at 6.30 tomorrow evening.
Woody
Oct 23, 2011, 10:13:56 AM10/23/11
to
Mark Carver
Oct 23, 2011, 2:02:13 PM10/23/11
to
>>>> Perhaps Freesat could enlighten us, what's the exact region?
>>> BBC Yorks and Lincs
>>>
>> Thanks, I'll give it a go at 6.30 tomorrow evening.
>
> 977 on Sky.
...and 967 on Freesat.
>>> BBC Yorks and Lincs
>>>
>> Thanks, I'll give it a go at 6.30 tomorrow evening.
>
> 977 on Sky.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
www.paras.org.uk
Stephen
Oct 23, 2011, 4:15:40 PM10/23/11
to
"Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:9gj35...@mid.individual.net...
The Other Mike
Oct 23, 2011, 5:02:58 PM10/23/11
to
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:33:14 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:
>On Friday, October 21st, 2011 at 19:48:47h +0100, The Other Mike wrote:
>
>> Luckily in recent years I've only experienced a few seconds of Peter Levy
>
>Everybody seems to be forgetting that Peter Levy was a presenter on
>Look North Leeds for many years, before he became anchor of Look North
>Kingston-Upon-Hull in 2002.
We can't forget, that period is etched on our minds forever and that
is why everyone who has the option avoids him like the plague.
>I do not recall people complaining about him back then.
Some just turned off, some watched the other side, some even
contemplated emigrating to L*nc*sh*r*, an odd few (very odd) just
gritted their teeth and put up with it.
--
wrote:
>On Friday, October 21st, 2011 at 19:48:47h +0100, The Other Mike wrote:
>
>> Luckily in recent years I've only experienced a few seconds of Peter Levy
>
>Everybody seems to be forgetting that Peter Levy was a presenter on
>Look North Leeds for many years, before he became anchor of Look North
>Kingston-Upon-Hull in 2002.
is why everyone who has the option avoids him like the plague.
>I do not recall people complaining about him back then.
contemplated emigrating to L*nc*sh*r*, an odd few (very odd) just
gritted their teeth and put up with it.
--
Grimly Curmudgeon
Oct 30, 2011, 9:20:48 PM10/30/11
to
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:13:37 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Some of the recent presenters on local radio seem to be of two main types.
>Competent but very boring, or full of themselves and smarmy. Is there some
>school somewhere that produces these, or is it that the people hiring are
>just plain daft?
It's what used to be DJ School - self-made tossers with the brainpower
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Some of the recent presenters on local radio seem to be of two main types.
>Competent but very boring, or full of themselves and smarmy. Is there some
>school somewhere that produces these, or is it that the people hiring are
>just plain daft?
of a dud drycell who managed to get a job because they knew someone in
the organisation through drinking with them. The people hiring are
often of the same type, though not always.
0 new messages