<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Hi Allen!</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style></div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.81.1550589489.1689.mythtv-users@mythtv.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">You can pretty much make the sensitivity of all of the tuners irrelevant
with a preamp right at the antenna.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Yes, agree: the
best
tuner in the world is only as good as the signal to it. Here have
experimented with a few pre-amps within three feet of the
antenna’s
connector, different splitters (non-amplifed), etc. The problem
seems to be a drop of the signal due to wind or possibly movement
of
tree branches. I can’t cut the neighbours’ (plural) trees but
can move the antenna and that didn’t help. And the pixellation
occurred if too deep/length of a signal; drop, never with an
increase, so presuming not an overload and therefore cutoff of the
tuner’s AGC circuitry or possibly overloading of the splitter.
(And I’m stating as partially as what I have done to rectify as
opposed to being confrontational – I’ll admit I may be on the
wrong track and willing to listen.)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">As it seems like
the
only thing I haven’t changed and have control over is the tuners
I’m considering a newer tuner might have better acceptance of
signal strength variations. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Barry </p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }a:link { }</style></p>
</body>
</html>