[Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 15:51

peteru wrote:
98% signal strength, 0% quality
You might see figures such as these when you are trying to tune into an analogue channel, rather than a digital channel.

That seems an unlikely one to me. I think that you can only get the Tuner Info popup on channels that have been scanned and identified as having digital signal, so it should be fairly difficult to get into a situation where you have a BW channel tuned to an analog transmitter.

That might be possible if you have marginal transmission from both a digital and an analog transmitter in the same channel, scan and detect the digital channel, and something happens (antenna rotated, for example) that makes the signal level of the analog channel dominate the digital channel.

The high observed signal level tends to rule that out.

taway · Post by **taway** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 17:22

Firmware changes were performed in the hope of resolving the problem or atleast kicking the ASICs in the guts.

The antenna is in the wall and on the roof, no rocking chairs, rats. dogs or lazy susans.

The antenna works fine with the HD tuner in my TV.

It's still broken despite trying everything suggested.

The beyonwiz, quality wise is poor. The software is flakey, the hardware is flakey. It's going back, under warranty thus week, and I won't accept anything except a full refund for this sad excuse for an embedded Linux device.

I bought it because I wanted something simple as I don't have time to mess about with MythTV. I regret that now. I'll just go buy some PC and run MythTV on it and it'll probably "just work" without any hassle.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 18:20

Hi taway. It's possible that there may be a hardware problem with the tuner. If you're willing to put up with the other firmware problems, it may be worth trying an exchange first, especially if the BW can't be made to work at the shop.

taway · Post by **taway** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 23:42

For no apparent reason, the signal strength is 99% and the signal quality is now 36% and there's obvious visual artefacts, skipping and white noise.

Flakey at best.

Neon Kitten · Post by **Neon Kitten** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 07:21

prl wrote:Hi taway. It's possible that there may be a hardware problem with the tuner. If you're willing to put up with the other firmware problems, it may be worth trying an exchange first, especially if the BW can't be made to work at the shop.

This all sounds *exactly* like the tuner failure I had with a Twinhan "Magic Box II" USB digital tuner a while back. In my case, SBS failed first, then the ABC and Ten, then, gradually, all of them, and they all varied between a "no signal" condition and occasional glitchy reception. It had worked fine when new, and started showing signs of failure perhaps 5 or 6 months into its life.

I had Twinhan's distributor replace it under warranty and the replacement is still running fine today, two years later.

Tuners *can* fail, and from both my own experience and from what I've read about it, it can be a gradual process. Given your success with reception on other devices in your home, Taway, I'd recommend exchanging your Beyonwiz for a new unit and I'd be willing to bet that fixes the problem.

Little Wolf · Post by **Little Wolf** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 16:41

[quote="taway"]...The beyonwiz, quality wise is poor. The software is flakey, the hardware is flakey. It's going back, under warranty thus week, and I won't accept anything except a full refund for this sad excuse for an embedded Linux device.
[/quote]

Sadly, I too am disappointed with the beyonwiz. Installed the latest firmware (May) but still have video drop-outs on EVERY channel. We are in a good reception area, and have a top aerial with active splitters. Despite being in Sydney North Shore, we have no problem picking up WIN, Prime and SC as well as the locals. I've watched shows through our Sony HD tuner with no interruption, but when checking the recording made of the same show there were frequent drop-outs.

So after a month, we still have
1) Signal drop outs
2) Problems reading legitimate DVDs, including hanging, skipping and drive racing.
3) Unable to connect to wireless network except when all security is removed. WII works fine in similar location.
4) Screwy F2A guide (nothing for 7 or SBS).
5) Occassional "Unable to read from media" problems on hard disk when trying to play back a recorded show.
6) And while we can now do some cutting from recordings, we can't join or paste them together, something my 3 year old LG can still do.

Where do I return it to - the shop where I got it, or beyonwiz direct?

peteru · Post by **peteru** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 17:23

Little Wolf wrote:Where do I return it to - the shop where I got it, or beyonwiz direct?

As with any goods you purchase from a retailer, the contract is between you and the retailer. Therefore, if you believe that the product is not fit for purpose, you need to take it up with the retailer. It's up to the retailer to come to some arrangement with the distributor, however that is of no concern to you as a customer. The retailer has an obligation to you by law and they can not pass that obligation onto anyone else.

SomebodyElse · Post by **SomebodyElse** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 06:25

Little Wolf wrote:2) Problems reading legitimate DVDs, including hanging, skipping and drive racing.

Interesting that several people report such similar problems with the DVD player, yet there are those who still assert they have no faults with it at all. Frankly I find it staggering that the simplest function of the whole package is so pathetically implemented and STILL hasn't been fixed!

taway · Post by **taway** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 13:44

Today, I am attempting to return my Beyonwiz.

I ring the retailer I bought the equipment from, he says, after 3 months, we need you to RMA through the manufacturer, we can't do a straight swap. OK, Fair enough. I ring Beyonwiz.

I select technical support and sit on hold for 10 minutes only to get pushed back to the main IVR menu. I goto technical support again. Hold again and then back to the main IVR menu. Out of desperation, I choose warranty repairs, I get a voicemail mailbox. Then, I try sales and get the same.

I then contacted my retailer and he agreed to swap the unit which I will be doing now.

prl · Post by **prl** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:02

Hi, taway. I still suggest getting the retailer to connect up both the old and new units in the shop to see whether there's any better reception on the new unit.

Little Wolf · Post by **Little Wolf** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:23

[quote="peteru"]
As with any goods you purchase from a retailer, the contract is between you and the retailer. Therefore, if you believe that the product is not fit for purpose, you need to take it up with the retailer. It's up to the retailer to come to some arrangement with the distributor, however that is of no concern to you as a customer. The retailer has an obligation to you by law and they can not pass that obligation onto anyone else.[/quote]

Returned to dealer (Bing Lee) who replaced it with no difficulty. Replacement unit already had May firmware loaded. Guide is loading too. So far, no break up of signal, even on SBS. Still having problem connecting to wireless when security is enabled.

We'll see....

prl · Post by **prl** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 14:38

Little Wolf wrote:...
Replacement unit already had May firmware loaded.
...

Just out of curiosity, what version of the manual?

Little Wolf · Post by **Little Wolf** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 16:08

prl wrote:
Little Wolf wrote:...
Replacement unit already had May firmware loaded.
...
Just out of curiosity, what version of the manual?

Version 1.2_Eng.

taway · Post by **taway** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 18:29

Thanks to my very nice retailer, I picked up a new DP-S1 today which was the 320Gb version (an upgrade). It came with the 1.3 manual and 201 firmware.

Channel 10 works perfectly fine so the unit, clearly, was defective after just three months.

eolian · Post by **eolian** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 15:21

Ever since the April firmware release, and every release since then, my BW reception has been unbearable. There is a lot of talk here about locking onto to signals, but no clear answer on the problem.

Is BW firmware responsible for poorer reception? I've had an antenna man in testing cables, lines and the antenna on the roof but there are no faults.

Was a happy BW customer, but becoming very unsatisfied.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 15:58

Hi Eolian,

eolian wrote:Ever since the April firmware release, and every release since then, my BW reception has been unbearable. There is a lot of talk here about locking onto to signals, but no clear answer on the problem.

Is BW firmware responsible for poorer reception? I've had an antenna man in testing cables, lines and the antenna on the roof but there are no faults.

Have you tried taking your Beyonwiz to another location (with good digital reception) to see how your unit performs?

Regards,
Ian.

eolian · Post by **eolian** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 16:25

The receoption was always fine, and the box hasn't moved since I bought my BW a couple weeks after they were first released on the market. It has only been since the April firmware release the reception quality has degraded.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 22:03

Hi Eolian,

eolian wrote:The receoption was always fine, and the box hasn't moved since I bought my BW a couple weeks after they were first released on the market. It has only been since the April firmware release the reception quality has degraded.

I take that as a "No". Can you please try it.

Regards,
Ian.

j s · Post by **j s** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 22:59

Andrew wrote: Some users mentioned that our box catches the wrong center frequency, i.e., xxx.625MHz etc instead of xxx.500MHz etc.
According to the Terrestrial Delivery System Descriptor of NIT, some station has the center frequency of xxx.635MHz instead of xxx.500MHz.
Therefore, this is truly proper operation.

I just checked the tuner information display on my problematic C10 reception. In my case C10 transmits on 788.625 (Bouddi) but the BW says it has locked on 788.500 - is this significant?

Service Name 1. TEN HD
Tuner Main
Frequency 788.500MHz
Bandwidth 7MHz
Modulation 64QAM
Mode 8K
Guard Interval 1/16
Code Rate 3/4
Lock Status Lock
Signal Strength 96%
Signal Quality 99%.

Strength was fluctuating from 95-98%. Quality from 97-99%

I haven't been using the BW much for watching TV (mostly use the TF5K still). Right now the picture is good and stable (though it always had good periods) but I guess I need to start watching the BW more to see if there actually has been an improvement.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:59

Hi J s,

j s wrote:I just checked the tuner information display on my problematic C10 reception. In my case C10 transmits on 788.625 (Bouddi) but the BW says it has locked on 788.500 - is this significant?

Service Name 1. TEN HD
Tuner Main
Frequency 788.500MHz
Bandwidth 7MHz
Modulation 64QAM
Mode 8K
Guard Interval 1/16
Code Rate 3/4
Lock Status Lock
Signal Strength 96%
Signal Quality 99%.

Strength was fluctuating from 95-98%. Quality from 97-99%

How were you able to confirm the current broadcast frequency for Bouddi? It is important the this frequency be confirmed.

If the difference is correct and confirmed then I suspect that this is significant.

Regards,
Ian.

prl · Post by **prl** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 14:47

My Beyonwiz displayes that it has tuned to ABC Digital Black Mountain Canberra at 205.500MHz. I have had confirmation from The Communications Officer at ABC Transmission Public Relations Unit that the transmission is in fact on 205.625MHz (as stated in the ACMA list of broadcast licenses). I've never had any problems with reception on ABC Digital on my BW.

The email from the ABC also said: "As long as your digital receivers lock onto our signal, whether they display 205.625 MHz or 205.5 MHz is not very important."

I do know, however, that the BWs can display their locked frequency as the offset frequency (xxx.375MHz or xxx.625MHz, rather than xxx.500MHz).

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 15:11

Hi Peter,

I still believe that the discrepancy should be investigated and/or explained by the Beyonwiz engineers. This diagnostic screen was specifically created to help diagnose potential tuner issues.

Regards,
Ian.

prl · Post by **prl** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 15:37

Yep, and I got pretty much nowhere in discussions about it on the beta forum.

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 16:34

I have a problem with the diagnostic display.

From what it seems to me is that is a display taken from the receiver after AGC, and CRC has been applied.
Reason I say this is that the BW shows all my signal strengths are 99%. I find it hard to believe all the channels I am receiving are at the same strength.
Especially since my previous boxes I have had showed differing signal strengths. Also I am comparing signals that I know are iffy (melb), and signals that I have no line of sight issues. (traralgon)

My other boxes would show sig strength anywhere from 68% (melb channels) to 92% or so.(Traralgon).

The quality on the BW is generally around 98% on all except one melb channel..
One previous box (DGTEC5000I) displayed a quality readout, and generally there was always a discrepancy, enough to make it believable as a guideline type of readout.

I would have hoped that the display was taken from somewhere prior to any adjustment mechanism.
This would give the user a warm feeling that they are displaying some sort of real value.
And would give a guideline as to what sig strengths are being seen.

prl · Post by **prl** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 17:27

Again, I tried, in discussions with Andrew Choi earlier in this thread, to find out more details about what the signal strength and signal quality indicators actually mean, but I was never quite sure in the end what they meant.

From what Andrew said, it appears that the signal strength is derived from the value of the feedback signal in the AGC, and it can't be related to any particular physical value at the BW antenna input. I wasn't even able to find out whether it was scaled linearly or logarithmically.

There was more information from Andrew about signal quality: "We change the BER of 0~30,000 to 0~99." Now I assume he means here Bit Error Rate (error bits/second, or some time interval), rather than Bit Error Ratio (no of error bits/no of bits), since the latter can't be more than 1. If it is Bit error Rate, then the two scales are reverse: 0 BER -> 99% quality; 30000 BER -> 0% quality. It also implies that no matter how good your signal is, you won't see any better than 99% quality.

The 99% upper limit may also apply to signal strength.

I don't have uniform 99% signal strength:

Code: Select all

Channel   Signal     Signal
        Strength    Quality
ABC       94-96%        99%
Prime        97%        99%
WIN          98%        99%
SC10      92-93%        99%
SBS       94-96%        99%

I'm about 6km from the transmitters, and apart from some trees about 200m away, I have clear line-of-sight to the transmitters from the antenna.

From memory, on the same antenna (but on 300ohm flat cabling vs my current 75ohm double-shielded coax) I got about 70% signal strength, and high-90's signal quality on my TF7000HDPVRt.

netmask · Post by **netmask** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 09:53

Last night for the first time ever I experienced pixellation . This occurred on all channels but especially Nine. I was recording Brothers and Sisters in HD on 7 at the time. From my roof I can see the transmitter towers of 2, 7 -10, and 9 about 7KM away. I have a Fracarro antenna and new cable etc

I recently updated to the June firmware and all was ok. Signal strength on all channels is around 99% and signal quality is around 96 to 98% on all channels except Nine which has a signal quality around 80 to 86%. As my reception has been perfect for as long as I've had a TV just wondering if the stormy weather may have shifted my antenna a bit, can't account for why Nine should be down when 7 and 10 are ok? Iv'e transferred B&S and put it through PX and made a mpeg file that is playable over the network. If you try to play the file recorded on the hard disk of the BW it plays back in slowish motion. I have checked the hard disk and appears to be OK. I could always go back to the December firmware but I really like the better functionality of the current firmware - any thoughts as to whats going on?

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 09:58

Hi Netmask,

Could this have been a one off or rare (external/unexplainable) issue?

Regards,
Ian.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:11

netmask wrote:Last night for the first time ever I experienced pixellation . This occurred on all channels but especially Nine. I was recording Brothers and Sisters in HD on 7 at the time. From my roof I can see the transmitter towers of 2, 7 -10, and 9 about 7KM away. I have a Fracarro antenna and new cable etc

I recently updated to the June firmware and all was ok. Signal strength on all channels is around 99% and signal quality is around 96 to 98% on all channels except Nine which has a signal quality around 80 to 86%. As my reception has been perfect for as long as I've had a TV just wondering if the stormy weather may have shifted my antenna a bit, can't account for why Nine should be down when 7 and 10 are ok? Iv'e transferred B&S and put it through PX and made a mpeg file that is playable over the network. If you try to play the file recorded on the hard disk of the BW it plays back in slowish motion. I have checked the hard disk and appears to be OK. I could always go back to the December firmware but I really like the better functionality of the current firmware - any thoughts as to whats going on?

A shift in your antenna is possible, but it doesn't seem to account for your problem. According to the ACMA licence book, all three commercials transmit from the "Nine" tower (Willoughby). All 5 major broadcasters transmit from the "Seven/Ten" tower (Artarmon). ABS and SBS broadcast from the "ABC" tower (Gore Hill). All transmitters on all towers are 50kW, except SBS which is 200kW, and is listed as having two 200kW transmissions (different antenna heights) from Gore Hill as well a a single transmission from Artarmon. All transmitter antennas are omnidirectional.

Could the high signal strength and low quality on Nine point more to interference than to the broadcast signal itself? Or possibly a tuner problem?

netmask · Post by **netmask** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:54

Although I don't remember doing it, it appears in one of my feather duster frenzies I must have swapped the antenna lead from the wall socket to the output of the BW and the link to the TV to the input

I plead jet lag from my recent sojourn in New York.. I'll keep an eye on it as there is a ham radio operator 3 houses up from me however in an easterly direction. The signal quality is now 99% on all channels and the signal strength on ch7 is 92 and the rest up near 98%. Maybe my cat did it while I was away...

peteru · Post by **peteru** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:12

netmask wrote:Maybe my cat did it while I was away...

Well, in that case the fault is with Beyonwiz engineering for not making the box immune to feline interference.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:28

netmask wrote:

Although I don't remember doing it, it appears in one of my feather duster frenzies I must have swapped the antenna lead from the wall socket to the output of the BW and the link to the TV to the input I plead jet lag from my recent sojourn in New York.. I'll keep an eye on it as there is a ham radio operator 3 houses up from me however in an easterly direction. The signal quality is now 99% on all channels and the signal strength on ch7 is 92 and the rest up near 98%. Maybe my cat did it while I was away...

In my mind this points to the almost-complete-meaninglessness of the BW's "signal strength" readings.

tonymy01 · Post by **tonymy01** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:48

netmask wrote:Maybe my cat did it while I was away...

Hey, Topfield have been paying household pets to do these swaps, to make the 7K seem a better prospect than the Wiz

(joking: I like Topfield actually, well, their SD PVR anyway).
It just goes to show that you can pick up digital TV on a piece of string in the right place. Your flylead between TV and WIz must not be shielded too well, or your TV internally perhaps?
Regards

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:59

prl wrote:My Beyonwiz displayes that it has tuned to ABC Digital Black Mountain Canberra at 205.500MHz. I have had confirmation from The Communications Officer at ABC Transmission Public Relations Unit that the transmission is in fact on 205.625MHz (as stated in the ACMA list of broadcast licenses). I've never had any problems with reception on ABC Digital on my BW.

The email from the ABC also said: "As long as your digital receivers lock onto our signal, whether they display 205.625 MHz or 205.5 MHz is not very important."

I do know, however, that the BWs can display their locked frequency as the offset frequency (xxx.375MHz or xxx.625MHz, rather than xxx.500MHz).

I think that the BW reports only the frequency that is in its initial scan tables. Not what it is actually locked on to.
ABC Black Mtn is reported as 205.500 on the BW, because that is what is in its scan tables, but is actually transmitting at 205.625 as per ABC's email.

In my region, WIN is reported as 585.625 on the BW, but a PC based frequency scan shows that it is actually transmitting at 585500. 585.625 is what is in the scan tables.

DNTVLive a PC based DTV application also shows WIN transmitting on 585.000.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 13:14

grampus wrote:
prl wrote:My Beyonwiz displayes that it has tuned to ABC Digital Black Mountain Canberra at 205.500MHz. I have had confirmation from The Communications Officer at ABC Transmission Public Relations Unit that the transmission is in fact on 205.625MHz (as stated in the ACMA list of broadcast licenses). I've never had any problems with reception on ABC Digital on my BW.

The email from the ABC also said: "As long as your digital receivers lock onto our signal, whether they display 205.625 MHz or 205.5 MHz is not very important."

I do know, however, that the BWs can display their locked frequency as the offset frequency (xxx.375MHz or xxx.625MHz, rather than xxx.500MHz).
I think that the BW reports only the frequency that is in its initial scan tables. Not what it is actually locked on to.
ABC Black Mtn is reported as 205.500 on the BW, because that is what is in its scan tables, but is actually transmitting at 205.625 as per ABC's email.

In my region, WIN is reported as 585.625 on the BW, but a PC based frequency scan shows that it is actually transmitting at 585500. 585.625 is what is in the scan tables.

DNTVLive a PC based DTV application also shows WIN transmitting on 585.000.

I don't know what's in the BW scan tables, but I would have guessed that it would just be the nominal centre frequency of the channel (which is always at the 0.500MHz point in Australia), and that during the scan the tuner would try the nominal centre frequency, the upper offset and the lower offset, and choose the offset (-125kHz, 0, or +125kHz) on some quality measure. I suspect that if the signal strength is high anyway, it may not discriminate correctly. However, I'm not sure why, if that's the case, it seems to make the incorrect choice consistently on rescans.

peteru · Post by **peteru** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 13:23

Steven once mentioned that the frequency is parsed from the NIT.

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 14:31

peteru wrote:Steven once mentioned that the frequency is parsed from the NIT.

I think thats correct.
The BW in its initialised state probably wouldn't 't have the NIT filled with the exact frequency, I expect, when you do a scan, it would start with the frequency allocated in the scan tables as an approximate, then search and lock on to the transmitted freq for the particular channel. Once locked on, then all the pertinent info for that channel is extracted from the data stream to fill the LCN's PIDS and whatever is associated with that channel.
I believe that the NIT is part of that data stream.
As an aside it also includes alternative frequencies in that table. In my area, channel 9 Melb, channel 10 Melb, and Prime in Traralgon are doing this.

My thoughts currently go this way,that the BW only uses the initial scan tables to extract the info for the tuner display, and could be incorrect. My assumption is that the BW is probably locked on to the correct frequency, but it the info isn't being extracted from the final frequency detail.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 14:53

I found two sections of the NIT with relevant information; the terrestrial_delivery_system_descriptor and the frequency_list_descriptor. The latter has the list that grampus describes of alternative frequencies for the same mux. the terrestrial_delivery_system_descriptor has the frequency/coding information for the current channel. This includes centre frequency, modulation type, code rate, guard interval, transmission mode, etc. There's no information about frequency offset.

It's still unclear to me exactly what's going on here. Is the ABC transmitting on 205.625MHz, but coding the nominal channel centre frequency, 205.500MHz in the NIT? Is the BW actually tuned to 205.625, but displaying the value in the NIT? Is it following the NIT and is tuned to 205.500MHz?

The other thing that's a bit odd about the NIT is that the tuner would surely have to have worked out pretty much all the information that's in the terrestrial_delivery_system_descriptor in order to receive and decode it.

j s · Post by **j s** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 15:20

IanSav wrote:Hi J s,
j s wrote:I just checked the tuner information display on my problematic C10 reception. In my case C10 transmits on 788.625 (Bouddi) but the BW says it has locked on 788.500 - is this significant?

Service Name 1. TEN HD
Tuner Main
Frequency 788.500MHz
Bandwidth 7MHz
Modulation 64QAM
Mode 8K
Guard Interval 1/16
Code Rate 3/4
Lock Status Lock
Signal Strength 96%
Signal Quality 99%.

Strength was fluctuating from 95-98%. Quality from 97-99%
How were you able to confirm the current broadcast frequency for Bouddi? It is important the this frequency be confirmed.

If the difference is correct and confirmed then I suspect that this is significant.

Regards,
Ian.

The information came from the reception planner on dba.org.au (which seems to have disappeared entirely now)

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 15:45

j s wrote:
IanSav wrote:Hi J s,
j s wrote:I just checked the tuner information display on my problematic C10 reception. In my case C10 transmits on 788.625 (Bouddi) but the BW says it has locked on 788.500 - is this significant?

Service Name 1. TEN HD
Tuner Main
Frequency 788.500MHz
Bandwidth 7MHz
Modulation 64QAM
Mode 8K
Guard Interval 1/16
Code Rate 3/4
Lock Status Lock
Signal Strength 96%
Signal Quality 99%.

Strength was fluctuating from 95-98%. Quality from 97-99%
How were you able to confirm the current broadcast frequency for Bouddi? It is important the this frequency be confirmed.

If the difference is correct and confirmed then I suspect that this is significant.

Regards,
Ian.
The information came from the reception planner on dba.org.au (which seems to have disappeared entirely now)

The transmitter licenses list on ACMA's web site also say that TEN Bouddi is 788.625MHz.

I'm not all that convinced that the offsets are critical to the receiver (as opposed to being critical for avoiding interference in neighbouring channels -- in Bouddi, TEN65 digital is alongside SBS64 analog, and TEN65 has a +125kHz offset to edge it away from SBS64). Grampus just PM'd me the output of scanchannel on his PC's tuner, and its tuning algorithm seems to be: try offset 0, then +125kHz, then -125kHz and use the first one it can get a lock on.

I confirmed the ABC Black Mountain frequency from a web form on their reception web pages. It took them a while to get back, but in the end they did. Ten's web site doesn't seem to have anything like that on their reception pages http://ten.com.au/ten/general-improving-reception.html. They do, though, helpfully point you off to a troubleshooting guide on the now-defunct DBA site, and the two "improving reception" guides they have linked to on their own web site return 404 Not Found. Though it's a very pretty 404 Not Found page, with station logo and all.

netmask · Post by **netmask** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 16:39

tonymy01 wrote:
netmask wrote:Maybe my cat did it while I was away...
Hey, Topfield have been paying household pets to do these swaps, to make the 7K seem a better prospect than the Wiz (joking: I like Topfield actually, well, their SD PVR anyway).
It just goes to show that you can pick up digital TV on a piece of string in the right place. Your flylead between TV and WIz must not be shielded too well, or your TV internally perhaps?
Regards

Actually both cables are sturdy and well shielded and have filters either end. It's the "ley lines" you know!! connect a piece of string and you can talk to the world in "La maison de l'?trange chat"

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 16:47

Have a look at the DTV forum.
Each geographical location has a "get best reception" for each location.
There is a PDF that can be pulled to see which channel is being used.
problem is that it doesn't give frequencies, but will show amongst other things, which one is offset.
I.E. Canberra ch 9A is offset according to the list.
Maybe that will help us get a clearer picture.

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showforum=82

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 16:57

prl wrote:
j s wrote:
IanSav wrote:Hi J s,
j s wrote:I just checked the tuner information display on my problematic C10 reception. In my case C10 transmits on 788.625 (Bouddi) but the BW says it has locked on 788.500 - is this significant?

Service Name 1. TEN HD
Tuner Main
Frequency 788.500MHz
Bandwidth 7MHz
Modulation 64QAM
Mode 8K
Guard Interval 1/16
Code Rate 3/4
Lock Status Lock
Signal Strength 96%
Signal Quality 99%.

Strength was fluctuating from 95-98%. Quality from 97-99%
How were you able to confirm the current broadcast frequency for Bouddi? It is important the this frequency be confirmed.

If the difference is correct and confirmed then I suspect that this is significant.

Regards,
Ian.
The information came from the reception planner on dba.org.au (which seems to have disappeared entirely now)
The transmitter licenses list on ACMA's web site also say that TEN Bouddi is 788.625MHz.

I'm not all that convinced that the offsets are critical to the receiver (as opposed to being critical for avoiding interference in neighbouring channels -- in Bouddi, TEN65 digital is alongside SBS64 analog, and TEN65 has a +125kHz offset to edge it away from SBS64). Grampus just PM'd me the output of scanchannel on his PC's tuner, and its tuning algorithm seems to be: try offset 0, then +125kHz, then -125kHz and use the first one it can get a lock on.

I confirmed the ABC Black Mountain frequency from a web form on their reception web pages. It took them a while to get back, but in the end they did. Ten's web site doesn't seem to have anything like that on their reception pages http://ten.com.au/ten/general-improving-reception.html. They do, though, helpfully point you off to a troubleshooting guide on the now-defunct DBA site, and the two "improving reception" guides they have linked to on their own web site return 404 Not Found. Though it's a very pretty 404 Not Found page, with station logo and all.

Bouddi ch 65 is offset as well according to the DTV list.

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 17:08

grampus wrote:...
Bouddi ch 65 is offset as well according to the DTV list.

TEN65 (Network Ten, channel 65, 788.625MHz) was what was being discussed. It's the only Bouddi digital transmission with an offset according to the ACMA listing. I'm not sure where the "as well" comes from.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 17:12

Hi Grampus,

grampus wrote:I think that the BW reports only the frequency that is in its initial scan tables. Not what it is actually locked on to.
ABC Black Mtn is reported as 205.500 on the BW, because that is what is in its scan tables, but is actually transmitting at 205.625 as per ABC's email.

In my region, WIN is reported as 585.625 on the BW, but a PC based frequency scan shows that it is actually transmitting at 585500. 585.625 is what is in the scan tables.

DNTVLive a PC based DTV application also shows WIN transmitting on 585.000.

In my case, my DP-S1 correctly reports Channel 9 Melbourne as being at 191.625 MHz and not the centre frequency of 191.500 MHz. I am sure that the Beyonwiz will display the offset value if it is being used.

Perhaps the issue is that the Beyonwiz is locking onto the first frequency it can get a signal on and not trying all the offsets to see if it can get a stronger/better signal there. I still think the incorrect frequency being shown on some units is something that needs to be investigated.

By the way, the channel tuning data that is in the NIT is often used (e.g. like in the UK) to tell the PVR what all the channel data is for all the other channels in the area. This allows the tuner to change channels much faster as the target channel data is already known from the NIT information on the current channel. Australia does not , as yet, make use of this feature.

Regards,
Ian.

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 19:41

prl wrote:
grampus wrote:...
Bouddi ch 65 is offset as well according to the DTV list.
TEN65 (Network Ten, channel 65, 788.625MHz) was what was being discussed. It's the only Bouddi digital transmission with an offset according to the ACMA listing. I'm not sure where the "as well" comes from.

I'm sorry to confuse.
I thought that there were 2 channels in some sort of contention
ABC Canberra, and 10 in NSW (Bouddi)

grampus · Post by **grampus** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 19:54

IanSav wrote:i
In my case, my DP-S1 correctly reports Channel 9 Melbourne as being at 191.625 MHz and not the centre frequency of 191.500 MHz. I am sure that the Beyonwiz will display the offset value if it is being used.

Yes, I have seen that, as well. That wasn't in contention.
the PC based channel scan also verifies that.

My point is that I believe that the BW is displaying what is in their scan tables. These I would believe are set up as a default as what BW understood to be the freqs at time of build. I don't think that they display what is actual.

I have a channel here that is transmitting on 585500, that the BW thinks should be on 585625.

I believe that the report of C10 Bouddi, and ABC canberra are also showing that the BW display is discrepant.
But once again, we will agree to disagree?

prl · Post by **prl** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 22:29

But the standard centre frequencies for digital are always on an even 500kHz. The offsets are normally used to "tweak" a digital channel away from a neighboring analog channel that it might interfere with. If everyone was always seeing the frequencies as an even 500kHz, then I'd go with the idea that the BW just shows the scan table frequency, but Ian sees an offset frequency. So I don't know what's going on here.

IanSav · Post by **IanSav** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 23:30

Hi Peter,

prl wrote:But the standard centre frequencies for digital are always on an even 500kHz. The offsets are normally used to "tweak" a digital channel away from a neighboring analog channel that it might interfere with. If everyone was always seeing the frequencies as an even 500kHz, then I'd go with the idea that the BW just shows the scan table frequency, but Ian sees an offset frequency. So I don't know what's going on here.

I am quite confident that the tuner database should *not* contain default frequencies that already include assumed offsets.

As I said earlier:

IanSav wrote:Perhaps the issue is that the Beyonwiz is locking onto the first frequency it can get a signal on and not trying all the offsets to see if it can get a stronger/better signal there. I still think the incorrect frequency being shown on some units is something that needs to be investigated.

Perhaps we are seeing a flaw in the search logic where the first acceptable signal is stopping the appropriate evaluation of the +/- 125KHz offsets that may lead to an even stronger signal lock.

Regards,
Ian.

Half Round · Post by **Half Round** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 00:46

My results: Darwin
chan - acma freq - BW display freq
29 --- 536.500 --- 536.500
30 --- 543.625 --- 543.500
31 --- 550.500 --- 550.500
32 --- 557.500 --- 557.625
33 --- 564.625 --- 564.625

all sig strength 91-94 quality 99

ACMA frequency taken from broadcast transmitter extract 7jun2008
Not sure what it means, but it fills in time collecting the info

[Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

Re: [Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

About the Forum

About the Forum

Join us