<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 5:55 PM Barry Martin <<a href="mailto:barry3martin@gmail.com">barry3martin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%">Jim and Devin:</p>
<pre class="gmail-m_-5980404912289484084western">You mentioned the HVR-2250. I threw that card away because it could not receive my local PBS station. my HDHR Connect and Quatro can receive that station at ~50%. My new WinTV Quad PCIe receives that station at 83%.
- -
I would encourage you to be very careful throwing around these numbers
as they are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Each demodulator chip
exposes it's SNR and signal level in a different format, so the scales
are largely arbitrary (and each of the three products you mentioned
have different demodulator chips). Knowing that 50% is worse than 80%
is useful for a particular card, but don't think 80% on one product is
the same as 80% on a different product if they have different
demodulator chips.</pre>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%">
Thanks for the replies. I found Jim’s comment interesting as I
also have problems receiving the two local PBS stations – one is
80
KW ERP, the other 368 KW – guess which one causes me the most
difficulty? Here the transmitting antennae are on the same tower
which is also shared by the three 1000 KW stations, so other than
transmitting power and frequency the only difference is elevation.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%">As for the signal
strength reading I interpret the display as a relative value. It
has
been probably almost two years since I did the testing but I think
my
system needed a ‘48’ to get a usable signal but was only able to
get to around ‘90’ as maximum reading. My intent was not to get
a high number but a more consistently usable signal; if it ended
up
at ‘75’ and I could essentially eliminate the pixelation I’d be
overjoyed!</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%">As for the the of
high-end test equipment and design – Devin provided a good
explanation. As I suggesting an an earlier post I’m thinking over
the years improvements have been in tuner technology. While I
don’t
think using a current tuner will magically eliminate all of my
pixelation issues it appears upgrading will be a worthwhile cost;
thanks to all for their input. (Now to get the time and money!)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;line-height:100%">Barry</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You can pretty much make the sensitivity of all of the tuners irrelevant with a preamp right at the antenna.</div><div><br></div><div>Allen</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div>