[mythtv-users] Copying channel definitions from one instance of MythTV to another

[Mike Perkins]

On 03/06/15 12:39, Simon Hobson wrote:
> Mike Perkins <mikep at randomtraveller.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Yup. My local is Hannington (8 miles) but I can also see Crystal Palace and
>> Oxford.
>>
>> I thought about sourcing a bandpass filter but there is almost an overlap
>> between the Hannington (50) and Crystal Palace (51) ranges and I don't
>> think they make filters that sharp.
>
> Not a chance, or at least, not at a price anyone would want to pay !
>
>> My procedure is:
>>
>> . Do a full scan. Use the internet to find out my local frequencies (and
>> what's on them).
>
> http://www.ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Hannington
> http://www.ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Crystal_Palace
> http://www.ukfree.tv/transmitters/tv/Oxford
>
>>
>> . Delete all transports but one from the transmitter you want.
>>
>> . Delete all remaining channels from the channel table so there is no
>> possibility of duplicates. Very occasionally I get channels with weird
>> numbers when they are present on all three transmitters, which means they
>> don't get overlaid with good info when I re-scan.
>>
>> . Do a scan using the one remaining transport, ticking the box for related
>> transports.
>
> That's a long way round. I just delete all channels and transports, then scan
> a single frequency - having looked it up on UKFree.tv (eg 706.0MHz is
> PSB1/BBCA on Winter Hill, on Hannington it's 666.0MHz). Tick the box for
> related transports and it then gets the other muxes. That is one feature
> that's great on DVB !
>
> On oddity is that I find it's best to scan each transport individually - if I
> just do "scan all known transports" it doesn't seem to get all the channels.
> I suspect it might just be a timing thing - I wonder if the tuners (Hauppage
> HVR1300/1350 PCIe IIRC) need a bit more time to settle than the scan function
> gives them.
>
That's something I find irritating too. I believe the transport scans are done 
differently depending what you ask for. It doesn't help that you get different 
fields shown in the results, often sorted in different orders (or not sorted at 
all).
>
>> Note: If you look at the console log while or after the scan, you will
>> discover that the location (ie "Hannington") is actually supplied for each
>> transport. It is unfortunate that this information isn't saved in the
>> database or displayed in the transport table edit screen.
>>
>> Having that location present would make selection much easier. An even
>> better step would be to do a full scan and then be asked which transmitters
>> you were interested in.
>
> Indeed.
>


-- 

Mike Perkins