<div class="gmail_quote">On 19 May 2011 16:29, John Veness <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:John.Veness.mythtv@pelago.org.uk">John.Veness.mythtv@pelago.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
</div>I'm not sure how having an additional set of multiplexes does anything<br>
that you cannot do more cleanly using<br>
<a href="http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Record_multiple_channels_from_one_multiplex" target="_blank">http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Record_multiple_channels_from_one_multiplex</a><br>
with one set of multiplexes.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>As I tried to explain. As far as I can tell. In the UK. Different transmitters group channels per mux differently. Also different transmitters include different channels. So yes I am using the above concept to the max. Or trying to.<br>
<br>I seem to be getting a "Well it's only set up for one transmitter" vibe though. Which brings me back to wondering about dvblast or something else as an input to myth.<br></div></div>