<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Hi Folks!</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">A while back I
posted a question asking if the Hauppauge 1609 might help solve
pixelation issues I have been having (re-)using my old Hauppauge
1600
and 2250 tuners. My theory was newer television tuners seem to be
better at recovering from signal drops so since the 1609 was new
maybe it would be better also. The 1600 and 2250 tuners give
satisfactory results except when it is windy outside; I also have
to
have the antenna in the storage area (attic) else one piddled-off
S.O.!</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">The good news is
preliminary tests indicated the Hauppauge 1609 tuner works! It is
somewhat windy today and the initial testing displayed a rare
minor
pixelation with the two weakest stations whereas with the other
tuners the signal would have probably been highly distorted and
possibly unwatchable. What I need is a good storm to really test –
we’ll get one! I can also increase the signal strength by
approximately 7 dB by removing a 4-way splitter that was feeding a
pair of 1600 tuners and a 2250 tuner in the old Backend.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">So, while the 1600
and 2250 tuners are good if one has pixelation problems replacing
with the 1609 might be a worthwhile investment. As always the
better
the input signal the better the recording. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Barry </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>