<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%">Hi Stephen!</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.3.1559390402.22012.mythtv-users@mythtv.org">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Most of the reception problem here seems to be external factors,
combined with tuner specs, I think similar to your issues. Calm wind,
good recordings. Windy conditions, start to get pixelation issues; seems
to be some correlation with the RF Channel (the actual frequency the TV
station is transmitting, not its virtual channel), though that tends to
fall apart as locally there are two stations, one RF36 and the other
RF38, both 1000KW, on literally the same tower. yet RF36 will pixelate
horribly and RF38 will be a clear picture.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Tuners and aerials have a centre frequency they operate best on, and
performance tends to fall off gradually the further away from the
centre frequency a transmitter is operating on. So for two stations
on the same tower at the same power, the difference in frequency will
usually explain different reception on the same tuner.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Probably got a bit sloppy in my writing again. “RF36” and
“RF38” refer to two specific channels within the U.S. television
allocation: RF36 from 602 – 608 MHz and RF38 614 to 620 MHz. My
assumption is as these are essentially the same frequency, the
same
power, the same tower except for height, then they should be
received
the same. (I’m about to learn some good stuff! :) ) </p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">td p { margin-bottom: 0in; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.3.1559390402.22012.mythtv-users@mythtv.org">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As for the Backend tuners, LIS previously the newer Hauppauge 1609 tuner
has worked well for me. Admittedly due to a little sloppiness in my
quickly connecting to an antenna the Backend with the 1609 inside is
connected to the antenna and splitter feeding the old Backend with the
1600 and 2250 tuners. IOW the two Backends are on the same antenna and
so getting the same signal. The new Backend (with 1609) is recording a
1000% better under mediocre reception conditions compared to the old
Backend.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">So are you saying your 1609 tuner gets a direct feed from an aerial,
but the 1600 and 2250 tuners get a split feed? If that is the case,
the 1600 and 2250 tuners will be getting a bit less than half the
signal level of the 1609, so you can not compare the performances that
way at all.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>No:</p>
<p> <tt>--------1600</tt></p>
<tt>
</tt>
<p><tt>Antenna ---- 4x -----1600</tt></p>
<tt>
</tt>
<p><tt> --------2500</tt></p>
<tt>
</tt>
<p><tt> ----------------------------------1609</tt></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>(If the diagram gets clobbered the antenna feeds to the 4x
splitter. The four tuners feed from the 4x splitter.)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>“4x” is a 4-way signal splitter.</p>
<p>The 1600 and 2250 tuners are inside the old Backend (BE1); the
1609 is inside the new Backend (BE3). The signal strength to the
1609 should be the same as what is going to the 1600 and 2250.
What
happens inside the tuner card with single, dual and quad tuner
devices is another level.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Barry – the advanced neophyte; the more I learn the better</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">td p { margin-bottom: 0in; }p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>