[Official Comment] Tuner Reception Issue

[grampus]

This may be a little long winded.
Trying to get it straight in my mind.

I set my BW back to factory defaults.
Looked at the scan tables. Went to partial scan and toggled down the list.
Every channel was XXX.5Mhz. So my first thought was wrong. The initial tables are all as most people suggested.

Now comes the confusing part.
Set it to partial scan.
I did a scan of one single channel. Ch 30 (SBS in my region)
Ch 30 543.5
It locked on that, and displayed 543.5 in the scan tables.
But when I then toggled through the rest of the channels, I found that ch 36 had altered from 585.5 to 585.6. Why?
I have only scanned in one channel, ch 30. Ch 36 had not been scanned.
I have only one channel available in my list.
I can only view one channel, SBS. That is the only channel available at that time.

For some reason. after the scan the table has had a channel (36) altered that hadn't been scanned.

So I think at this moment, I can't trust what I see in the scan tables.

[tonymy01]

Let me get this straight, you scanned UHF30, and you now also see a UHF36? Are you sure it isn't "LCN36"? There can be multiple LCNs per RF channel number, I am just checking that this isn't what you have seen. Given UHF30 and UHF36 are on very different frequencies, I am sure you are mixing up RF channel numbers with Logical Channel Numbers.
Remember when you are partial scanning you are scanning the RF channel number that the whole multiplex lives on, this could have dozens of LCN channels on it (e.g ABC with the few other TV and few other Radio stations).
Regards

[grampus]

Let me get this straight, you scanned UHF30, and you now also see a UHF36? Are you sure it isn't "LCN36"? There can be multiple LCNs per RF channel number, I am just checking that this isn't what you have seen. Given UHF30 and UHF36 are on very different frequencies, I am sure you are mixing up RF channel numbers with Logical Channel Numbers.
Remember when you are partial scanning you are scanning the RF channel number that the whole multiplex lives on, this could have dozens of LCN channels on it (e.g ABC with the few other TV and few other Radio stations).
Regards

No, I scanned UHF CH 30 This is SBS, this yields LCN's 30,3,31,33,38,39.
When I did this, these are the only LCN's available.
I was not able to see UHF 36.

When I then went to the scan table by going to partial scan, and toggled down to see what had happened, I found that UHF ch 36 had had its freq altered. From 585.5 to 585.6. To my way of thinking there is no way that the BW should be able to define what freq it was seiing until the channel was scanned.

This channel UHF 36 is WIN Latrobe Valley. This channel did not have any services available, until I actually scanned that channel.
This yields LCN's 8 and 80.

Hope we are now talking apples and apples?

[prl]

Hi Peter,

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:

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.

Hi, Ian.

I agree that the frequency database mapping channels to frequency should not contain any presumption of Australia-wide fixed offsets. They are a purely local phenomenon used (as I understand it) largely for managing interference with neighbouring analog channels. Each time I've looked at the frequencies for a particular channel that has an offset in some location, I've found instances where the channel has no offset at other locations.

Given the behaviour of scanchannel, which operates in just the way you describe, I think it's possible that the BW tuning algorithm works in the same way. In that case I would assume that people would most likely see the BW finding the correct offset in areas where signal strength was low. That would mean that being tuned "off" slightly might make more of a difference to the BW's ability to lock onto the signal. I really wonder, though, whether the IF filters are tightly tuned enough and of high enough order for a 1.8% difference in centre frequency in a fairly flat 7MHz spectrum to pick up much of a difference in signal level between the nominal centre frequency and the offsets even if the BW did search all three frequencies and pick the one that did best on some quality measure.

If the NIT can be relied on to contain the correct actual broadcast frequency, rather than the nominal channel centre, I'd have thought the best strategy would be to find the first frequency that gives a lock and a reasonable BER, read the NIT, and then tune to that frequency.

[tonymy01]

Sounds like a good idea Peter. The Wiz quality number cannot be relied on for short term it seems anyway (most people seeing silly 99% level & quality even though they get squeaks & pops and breakups), but obviously for longer term periods where there may be transients and local interference from all manner of things (household appliances, ham/CB/etc radio transmitters etc) it is critical the Wiz is tuned to the correct frequency including offset. What we really need is for Beyonwiz to confirm what that number is that we see in the f/w now. Is it the NIT figure, or is it the actual Rx frequency? Does it attempt to adjust for the NIT figure?
Regards

[IanSav]

Hi Peter,

If the NIT can be relied on to contain the correct actual broadcast frequency, rather than the nominal channel centre, I'd have thought the best strategy would be to find the first frequency that gives a lock and a reasonable BER, read the NIT, and then tune to that frequency.

This is an excellent idea! If Beyonwiz isn't already doing this (which appears to be the case given some of the observations here) then I hope Beyonwiz seriously considers the suggestion.

(Side note: I *really* hope that the TV stations have these NIT tables correct or this will really cause some grief!)

Andrew/Steven/Hanjo - Can you possible modify the Tuner Information screen to not only include the frequency as discovered during the scan but to also list the frequency as suggested within the NIT table. If the scanned and NIT frequencies are the same the display should remain as it is now "Frequency 191.625 MHz", if they disagree then display something like "Frequency 191.500 (191.625) MHz ", where the first number is the scanned frequency and the number in brackets is the frequency in the NIT table.

Regards,
Ian.

[grampus]

Just an addendum to all this re tuner offsets.
I have done a couple more tests with 2 PC based products.

As I said in a previous post, in the BW at factory default, Ch 36 was at 585.5.
Once I had scanned in UHF ch 30.
the indicated freq for
ch 36 altered to 585.6, even though it had not been scanned/tuned.

On the PC.
1: Using a product called ScanChannel1BDA. Amongst other things, this allows me to try and tune to individual frequencies.

Using the frequency indicated in my partial scan tables, UHF ch 36. 585.625 I am unable to get a lock on it.
But if I use 585500 I can lock on to that .


2: Using DNTVlive, This allows tuning by individual frequency, I attempted to tune for 585625. This locked and indicated a locked frequency of 585500.

This leads me to believe that the actual frequency is 585500, and the BW indicator of 585625 is erroneous.
I would also assume that the BW would have the capability of tuning into the correct freq, and has done so, as this should be receiver tuning basics.

[prl]

Hi grampus.

585.5MHz for Chan36 Mt Tassie is certainly consistent with what ACMA says they should be broadcasting on

What does your BW say for ABLV Digital (ABC chan42 Mt Tassie)? ACMA says it should be 627.375MHz (giving VTV43 a bit of spare frequency space). The scanchannel scan you sent me found it at 627.500, but of course, that's just the frequency it tries first.

[grampus]

Hi grampus.

585.5MHz for Chan36 Mt Tassie is certainly consistent with what ACMA says they should be broadcasting on

What does your BW say for ABLV Digital (ABC chan42 Mt Tassie)? ACMA says it should be 627.375MHz (giving VTV43 a bit of spare frequency space). The scanchannel scan you sent me found it at 627.500, but of course, that's just the frequency it tries first.

627.5

Both the PC based apps were unable to lock on to 627375.
But locked on 627500.

Funny you should mention that,
Although I don't have firm evidence anymore, I thought that ch42 was at 627375 quite some time ago. This was seen on my PC based DNTVLive, the BW reported 627500, This triggered off a query to the ABC, and as I recall was verified by the ABC that they were transmitting on 627375.
Just after my query, I noticed that DNTVLive was reporting it at 627500.
Just left it in the too hard bin at that time.

[j s]

My C10 reception from Bouddi was quite bad last night on my P1 so I did some more checking.

C10 was showing Quality fluctuating from 90-95% and was popping/pixelating very badly.
In contrast C9 (767500 from Bouddi) had a Quality from 80-86% (occasionally down to 75%) but had only intermittent mild pixelation and other artefacts. Other Networks were stable at 99% Quality.

It seems very strange that C9 could give a stable result at a much lower Quality.

My S1 (in another room) showed higher Quality values for both C9 (85-95%) and C10 (94-97%) with C9 being perfect but C10 still having problems, though milder than the P1.

The cabling runs for the two rooms are similar (RG6 Quadshield from the same Kingray powered splitter) until the room itself is reached.

For the P1 room the signal is then split to feed P1, TF5K(2 inputs), Amp(FM), VCR/TV and 2 tuner cards on on PC.

For the S1 room the feed goes to S1, TF5K(2 inputs), Amp(FM), VCR/DVDR/TV, another FM receiver, Compro analog tuner and a PC with three tuner cards.

On the TF5Ks there is no discernible difference between the two rooms and the room with better reception has the more complex feed. It might be the P1 & S1 are the difference but I would need to swap them to find out and that is non-trivial. Both TF5Ks show Quality at least 98% on all networks. The TF5K also shows 788500 (not 788625) as the frequency for C10.

All the splitters are either Kingray or Magnavox. All cabling is RG6 quadshield except the final runs to the PC cards. (I have discovered the hard way that the stiffness of quadshield puts too much strain on the socket which eventually breaks off thus making the card useless. Does anyone make flexible quadshield?)

[Half Round]

Incorrectly displayed frequencies.
I am just wondering if the incorrect frequencies shown are a result of the algorithm used to translate the internal digital number that represents the frequency.
If like most tuning systems the tuner is controlled by a PLL, then two numbers control the setup of the dividers for reception of a frequency. The PLL shifts frequency in a predefined step and the number represents the total number of steps. If the scan was in 125khz steps then an error in the translation algorithm may give the errors seen. i.e +/- 125khz
Tony

[grampus]

My C10 reception from Bouddi was quite bad last night on my P1 so I did some more checking.

C10 was showing Quality fluctuating from 90-95% and was popping/pixelating very badly.
In contrast C9 (767500 from Bouddi) had a Quality from 80-86% (occasionally down to 75%) but had only intermittent mild pixelation and other artefacts. Other Networks were stable at 99% Quality.

It seems very strange that C9 could give a stable result at a much lower Quality.

My S1 (in another room) showed higher Quality values for both C9 (85-95%) and C10 (94-97%) with C9 being perfect but C10 still having problems, though milder than the P1.

The cabling runs for the two rooms are similar (RG6 Quadshield from the same Kingray powered splitter) until the room itself is reached.

For the P1 room the signal is then split to feed P1, TF5K(2 inputs), Amp(FM), VCR/TV and 2 tuner cards on on PC.

For the S1 room the feed goes to S1, TF5K(2 inputs), Amp(FM), VCR/DVDR/TV, another FM receiver, Compro analog tuner and a PC with three tuner cards.

On the TF5Ks there is no discernible difference between the two rooms and the room with better reception has the more complex feed. It might be the P1 & S1 are the difference but I would need to swap them to find out and that is non-trivial. Both TF5Ks show Quality at least 98% on all networks. The TF5K also shows 788500 (not 788625) as the frequency for C10.

All the splitters are either Kingray or Magnavox. All cabling is RG6 quadshield except the final runs to the PC cards. (I have discovered the hard way that the stiffness of quadshield puts too much strain on the socket which eventually breaks off thus making the card useless. Does anyone make flexible quadshield?)

I'll probably be flamed for this, but I am of the firm belief that the BW does not have a very good front end. Be it s/w or h/w. But I have now had 4 separate devices on the same cable run, and the BW is the worst.

Hopefully they can do something by s/w.

[grampus]

Incorrectly displayed frequencies.
I am just wondering if the incorrect frequencies shown are a result of the algorithm used to translate the internal digital number that represents the frequency.
If like most tuning systems the tuner is controlled by a PLL, then two numbers control the setup of the dividers for reception of a frequency. The PLL shifts frequency in a predefined step and the number represents the total number of steps. If the scan was in 125khz steps then an error in the translation algorithm may give the errors seen. i.e +/- 125khz
Tony

Currently I believe that display is only a cosmetic, and doesn't reflect real values as far as freq is concerned.
I think that the displayed quality and strength are misleading as well, as I believe that they are after any correction has been applied. IMO, they should be displaying actual received values, prior to any massage by AGC or CRC.

[peteru]

they should be displaying actual received values, prior to any massage by AGC or CRC.

Yes, that would make sense for the signal strength. There are a couple of alternatives - one would be to show the true signal strength before AGC is applied, the other would be to show the amount of AGC being applied and the final signal strength.

However, signal quality is a function of the several layers of error correction and the only way you are going to get any results there is to apply all the error correction algorithms and then gather the data that comes out at the end. You can not tell how many errors you corrected (or how many were uncorrectable) without going through the error correction.

It would be nice if the raw data was available somewhere in /proc (like it is for wireless networking) so that it can be collected to timestamped log files. This would then allow this information to be analysed and possibly correlate it with issues seen in recordings.

As it stands, the Beyonwiz has two very user friendly meters that are about as useful as <insert your favourite analogy here>

[prl]

they should be displaying actual received values, prior to any massage by AGC or CRC.

Yes, that would make sense for the signal strength. There are a couple of alternatives - one would be to show the true signal strength before AGC is applied, the other would be to show the amount of AGC being applied and the final signal strength.

However, signal quality is a function of the several layers of error correction and the only way you are going to get any results there is to apply all the error correction algorithms and then gather the data that comes out at the end. You can not tell how many errors you corrected (or how many were uncorrectable) without going through the error correction.

It would be nice if the raw data was available somewhere in /proc (like it is for wireless networking) so that it can be collected to timestamped log files. This would then allow this information to be analysed and possibly correlate it with issues seen in recordings.

As it stands, the Beyonwiz has two very user friendly meters that are about as useful as <insert your favourite analogy here>

The best explanation that we've had from Beyonwiz about what the meters mean was this post from Andrew Choi from BW.

However, as I say in my followup post, there were a number of things that were still very unclear to me.

However, from what Andrew said, I think:

Signal strength is derived (by unknown means) from the gain setting of the AGC. It seems to be a very poor indication of signal strength, and almost all setups show very high signal strengths on any channel that can be locked onto. If a channel can't be locked onto in the scan, then you can't see the signal strength, but if you know that there's a transmitter in that channel, you at least know it has seriously inadequate signal strength.

Signal quality is, I think, derived from the Bit Error Rate (possibly number of bits/second, though Andrew never said). If that is correct, this number is derived, as peteru said, from the error correction system. Another useful measure is the UNC (UNCorrected blocks), the number of data blocks that were so badly corrupted that error correction failed (they end up as pixelation or audio artifacts). From what Andrew said, there's no indication of UNC in the BW signal quality measure.

There's no indication in Andrew's post (and no response to my question in the following post) of whether the quality indicators are linear or logarithmic (or any other function) with respect to the underlying measurement.

I think that peteru's judgment is a bit harsh about the signal quality indicator, but I have to agree with him on signal strength.

[peteru]

There's plenty of scope for things to go wrong with AGC, as I have found with a couple of the PVRs I worked on. In fact, the AGC implementation in one of the TCL tuners we used took several months to troubleshoot and involved TCL engineers in HK and China. We also found that Philips got their AGC right on the tuners that we tested and being pin compatible, the Philips tuners proved to be an invaluable benchmark reference.

Some tuners can have a few of the AGC parameters programmed via software and many also have physical pins to control the AGC via external means.

If I was intimately involved in troubleshooting this, I would start with the data sheets for the tuners and figure out what kind of time basis is used with the AGC. I suspect that the issues are most probably related to impulse noise, which may possibly destabilise the AGC or cause a delayed effect.

[grampus]

You can not tell how many errors you corrected (or how many were uncorrectable) without going through the error correction.

Ahh, that makes sense.

[grampus]

All these previous posts really come about because of what I think I perceive is a touchy front end.
Wouldn't it be luverly if they were able to get the developers out into the Oz field, and do their testing/tuning there.
At one stage I think there was a suggestion that this may happen.

Seems to me that we really can't have too much wrong with the BW if we can spend all this time on the indicators pop-up?

Now if only the power outtage issues (cant automatically power up and resume on some recordings) , can't power up and recheck the time after the super cap has exhausted.
Plus improve the front end, I would be a very happy camper.

[IanSav]

Hi Grampus,

All these previous posts really come about because of what I think I perceive is a touchy front end.
Wouldn't it be luverly if they were able to get the developers out into the Oz field, and do their testing/tuning there.
At one stage I think there was a suggestion that this may happen.

Not all of the work is done from afar.

Regards,
Ian.

[prl]

The reason for the interest in the tuner indicators is not in inherently in the indicators themselves, but in what they might be able to help with in diagnosing problems in the tuners. But they're not much use unless you know what the measure. There's not much more public information about the signal strength indicator from BW beyond "it measures stuff to do with AGC".

I'm beginning to wonder whether rather than measuring the AGC feedback gain, the signal strength percentage is indicating the signal strength at the AGC output, which would account for its remarkable stability in the high 90s for most users, because signal strength stability into the IF stage is what the AGC is designed to achieve.

[grampus]

Hi Grampus,

All these previous posts really come about because of what I think I perceive is a touchy front end.
Wouldn't it be luverly if they were able to get the developers out into the Oz field, and do their testing/tuning there.
At one stage I think there was a suggestion that this may happen.

Not all of the work is done from afar.

Regards,
Ian.

Do you mean that they have brought their tech support into OZ with the appropriate tools to look at what was described by local BW support as a fairly wide spread problem in the front end?

[IanSav]

Hi Grampus,

Do you mean that they have brought their tech support into OZ with the appropriate tools to look at what was described by local BW support as a fairly wide spread problem in the front end?

I don't think I am at liberty to discuss this in any more detail.

Beyonwiz are concerned about the quality of their product. They have been reviewing and working on tuner issues as evidence of problems are reported. The whole Tuner Information pop up was created to allow Beyonwiz to glean information from all Australian users about the tuner's performance in their environment. What this pop up shows is not really intended as information for the user but more information to be provided to Beyonwiz should a user believe that they have a reception issue. (It doesn't matter what the information shown means as long as it is meaningful and helpful to Beyonwiz - if it is helpful to the user then that is an extra bonus.)

Beyonwiz has already confirmed that they are following the information in this thread and are examining their tuner code to ensure that it does the best job that it can do.

Regards,
Ian.

[grampus]

I don't think I am at liberty to discuss this in any more detail.
Ian.

Why bother with vague statements then. It would be just a little more info that would assist us poor plebs be sympathetic to the efforts.

[peteru]

I'm beginning to wonder whether rather than measuring the AGC feedback gain, the signal strength percentage is indicating the signal strength at the AGC output, which would account for its remarkable stability in the high 90s for most users, because signal strength stability into the IF stage is what the AGC is designed to achieve.

If that is the case, then fluctuations in the signal strength value should directly correlate with a decrease in quality. I take it that when problems do occur the signal strength drops from 99% right down and then rises back to 99% over some period of time.

I would not be surprised if the AGC was too sensitive / aggressive. This could explain a case where if you inject a high amplitude impulse noise signal, the AGC attenuates the incoming signal, thus dropping signal level right down. It may then take a significant amount of time for the AGC to increase the gain to a suitable level. This scenario would have symptoms similar to what people describe. The Beyonwiz would have drop outs that can be cured with improved shielding and cabling and in comparison with other device, it would appear more fickle. This would also explain why reproducing problems in the lab is not so easy. If testing is done by only injecting fairly constant amounts of pink/white noise, the circuit is likely to perform fairly well. However, impulse noise (and particularly noise patterns with a well defined waveform and a specific duration) tend to be less common in testing scenarios.

There's not much that can be done about impulse noise - it will result in data loss. It would be good if the AGC could be tuned so that impulse noise is limited to a blip, instead of it destabilising the AGC and causing extended signal drops. This could be the difference between a few concealed macroblock errors versus a total break up of picture and squeals/loss of audio.

[IanSav]

Hi Grampus,

Why bother with vague statements then. It would be just a little more info that would assist us poor plebs be sympathetic to the efforts.

I'm sorry my post offended you, I was trying to be as informative as I thought I could be.

Regards,
Ian.

[prl]

I'm beginning to wonder whether rather than measuring the AGC feedback gain, the signal strength percentage is indicating the signal strength at the AGC output, which would account for its remarkable stability in the high 90s for most users, because signal strength stability into the IF stage is what the AGC is designed to achieve.

If that is the case, then fluctuations in the signal strength value should directly correlate with a decrease in quality. I take it that when problems do occur the signal strength drops from 99% right down and then rises back to 99% over some period of time.

I would not be surprised if the AGC was too sensitive / aggressive. This could explain a case where if you inject a high amplitude impulse noise signal, the AGC attenuates the incoming signal, thus dropping signal level right down. It may then take a significant amount of time for the AGC to increase the gain to a suitable level. This scenario would have symptoms similar to what people describe. ...

That sounds a little like a problem I had while watching Prime a few nights ago; complete loss of video and sound, with the "Lost signal" popup, but I'm in what must be a high signal area, only 6km from Prime's 50kW transmitter and good line of sight. It happened a couple of times, for 10-15 seconds, then came back after each loss and we then had no problems for the rest of the show. That would be consistent with pretty bad impulse noise.

The problem is, of course, that there's no logging of the signal strength/quality, so it's hard to find out in retrospect what went wrong, as you've already noted.

[grampus]

I would not be surprised if the AGC was too sensitive / aggressive. This could explain a case where if you inject a high amplitude impulse noise signal, the AGC attenuates the incoming signal, thus dropping signal level right down. It may then take a significant amount of time for the AGC to increase the gain to a suitable level. This scenario would have symptoms similar to what people describe.

I have been wondering that as well. I posted something like that a while ago.
I have had a number of instances where, one channel (7 Melb) specifically has been absolutely ratty, the sig strength at this time is fluctuating between 96 - 98%, the quality is fluctuating badly down in the 70% at times, and back up again to the 90's.
I have also had (not many, but), occasional times, where I have switched off 7, gone to another channel, back again, and the sig strength and quality is rock solid.
Its as if the AGC had locked on, and hadn't gone out of control, for want of a better description.

[Altimes]

As another FYI sample point, our antenna mast was recently blown down. It came down in such a manner that the antenna is lying across the tiles. Whilst we wait for the repairs we have *sub-optimal* reception. It is a good demostration of Digital over Analogue.

However, BW reception varies with weather condtions. It is interesting to note that when the BW gets to the "virtually unwatchable" state quality< 40%, if I switch to the TV (with its digital tuner) the picture is fine. The TV appears to cope with the marginal signal with substantially better than the BW. Given that the TV sees the signal after the BW it does suggest the the Panasonic can extract a cleaner single or is processing all the embedded error recovery more successfully.

[taway]

The tuner in my ~2 month old DP-S1 which was provided to me as a replacement for my previous DP-S1which was ~6 months old has now died.

Several re-scans produce only channel 7 while other DTVs in the home work fine as does the television itself with the on-board DTV tuner.

The Beyonwiz DP-S1 is the worst product I have ever had the misfortune to buy. The management of this company should be ashamed of themselves that they produce such a flaky, poor, substandard product.

I will be contacting my retailer, and returning the product this time, for a full refund. I will not accept a replacement.

I will also be making a complaint to the DFT regarding Beyonwiz.

[BullockBob]

The tuner in my ~2 month old DP-S1 which was provided to me as a replacement for my previous DP-S1which was ~6 months old has now died.

Several re-scans produce only channel 7 while other DTVs in the home work fine as does the television itself with the on-board DTV tuner.

The Beyonwiz DP-S1 is the worst product I have ever had the misfortune to buy. The management of this company should be ashamed of themselves that they produce such a flaky, poor, substandard product.

I will be contacting my retailer, and returning the product this time, for a full refund. I will not accept a replacement.

I will also be making a complaint to the DFT regarding Beyonwiz.

Sorry to hear of your misfortune. That truly is really bad luck.

I can assure you though that your experiences are not the norm.

[technoboffin]

I seem to have serious audio and picture breakup when viewing HD.

Other channels are fine.

When I switch to HD on my Panasonic tv using the same antenna its fine.
Sound and picture is good.

Any ideas?

Is this issue going to be fixed asap??

Its a pain if I want to record...I can only record standard def.

[sydney2218]

[quote="technoboffin"]I seem to have serious audio and picture breakup when viewing HD.

Other channels are fine.

When I switch to HD on my Panasonic tv using the same antenna its fine.
Sound and picture is good.

Any ideas?

Is this issue going to be fixed asap??

Its a pain if I want to record...I can only record standard def. :([/quote] Check your output resolution in the AV settings for BW is 1080i & is the cabling from the PVR component or hdmi .Also check settings for AV channel in TV that it is set for 1080i .Read the manuals to see the sequence of buttons & options .For HD you need 1080i /720p or auto .Maybe its still set on 576.

[IanSav]

Hi Technoboffin,

I seem to have serious audio and picture breakup when viewing HD.

Other channels are fine.

When I switch to HD on my Panasonic tv using the same antenna its fine.
Sound and picture is good.

Any ideas?

Is this issue going to be fixed asap??

Its a pain if I want to record...I can only record standard def.

What firmware are you using?

Have you tried restarting the unit?

What does the Tuner Information screen say about the signal on a problem channel?

Regards,
Ian.

[technoboffin]

Hi Technoboffin,

I seem to have serious audio and picture breakup when viewing HD.

Other channels are fine.

When I switch to HD on my Panasonic tv using the same antenna its fine.
Sound and picture is good.

Any ideas?

Is this issue going to be fixed asap??

Its a pain if I want to record...I can only record standard def.

What firmware are you using?

Have you tried restarting the unit?

What does the Tuner Information screen say about the signal on a problem channel?

Regards,
Ian.

Latest firmware...
Signal is about 94 in strength and 99 quality for example Prime HD.

That I would have thought should provide a good quality picture and sound.
Yet I have had movies that have repeatedly died in sound throughout...
Its not just the recorded movies...its live as well.

Its not a matter of restarting....cause it happens frequently.

[technoboffin]

I seem to have serious audio and picture breakup when viewing HD.

Other channels are fine.

When I switch to HD on my Panasonic tv using the same antenna its fine.
Sound and picture is good.

Any ideas?

Is this issue going to be fixed asap??

Its a pain if I want to record...I can only record standard def.

Check your output resolution in the AV settings for BW is 1080i & is the cabling from the PVR component or hdmi .Also check settings for AV channel in TV that it is set for 1080i .Read the manuals to see the sequence of buttons & options .For HD you need 1080i /720p or auto .Maybe its still set on 576.

Its set to auto....

Picture is 1080i...and is fine most of the time...until it starts breaking up...and sound disppears..and then reappears.

[tonymy01]

Do you have multiple channels of the same LCN (same channel number) in your Wiz?
Because the reception of HD and SD from the same broadcaster from the same location should not have any differences, i.e. if HD is glitching, the SD will be glitching also.
You can check which frequency each channel is on, if they are on different frequencies it appears you may be getting multiple channels from multiple sources and my advice is to delete the bad ones.
If they are on the same frequency, and the HD is glitching but the SD isn't, then I suggest this is a broadcaster problem, or your amp is more sensitive to getting an audio pop/squeak/blip for AC3 than it does for MPEG.
If you are running the latest f/w, press the audio key on Ten SD and change to the AC3 audio track, and then compare the SD and HD (assuming you have done everything above and you don't have multiple TenHD channels on the same channel number). If you now get audio hiccups on both SD and HD then it is possibly you are getting interference and your amp doesn't like the AC3 stream getting glitched. If you setup the Wiz to 2channel instead of passthru, then it will internally decode the audio and won't have too many glitch problems, and will be similar possibly to how your TV is setup, which is a fair comparison.
Regards

[sydney2218]

"Do you have multiple channels of the same LCN (same channel number) in your Wiz?" I bet that is the issue. Many times in Sydney i find this is a problem.But you mention Prime HD .What LCNS are in the BW & frequencies ?

[tonymy01]

Sorry mate, not much info with your last post, you are quoting something from me I can see.
LCNs=logical channel numbers, i.e. the normal number you use to view the digital channel.
Frequency is what is being transmitted by the broadcaster.
You can view "list" from live viewing and hit blue "all service" and view all channels you currently have stored, and it will show their LCN, name and in the black bit at the bottom will show RF channel number as "chXX" and also RF frequency next to it.
Regards

[M&M]

I am am having a similar issue with my S1. When it wakes up from standby it loses reception if the previous watched channel was ABC1/ABCHD/ABC2. This can be corrected by changing to a non ABC channel or rebooting the machine but is this is not an option for most/all timer recordings. When the S1 comes out of standby, it has signal for about 2 mins then the no reception pop-up appears. Prior to losing reception tuner information shows Signal strength 95 - 97% , Signal Quality 99% .

I have followed all previous suggestions such as deleting all other frequencies repeating broadcasting of LCN's, rescanning channels etc. I followed previous suggestion of trying the S1 at another location ( 5km away) an this issue also occurred there which I would think woyuld rule out reception/antennae problems.

My settings are:
.261
1080i
component
coax audio (pass through)
no networking (Soft padding enabled: 0 for pre-padding & 5 mins for post padding
time shift enabled

Can anyone suggest how to overcome this issue or does it seem that my tuner has an fault?

[IanSav]

Hi M&M,

Can anyone suggest how to overcome this issue or does it seem that my tuner has an fault?

I assume that when you tried your unit at the other location you *didn't* use your existing fly lead. I also assume that the antennas you are using and testing with are rated to properly receive Digital Channel 2 (VHF 12 if that is correct for your area).

It appears you have tried all the usual things. It sounds like it may be time to call Beyonwiz Australia and see what they suggest.

Regards,
Ian.

[M&M]

Hi Ian,
I didn't take fly-leads across the 2 locations. Yep, both antenna work fine and are rated for DTV and I'm using freq 226.5 as I'm located in southern suburbs of Syd.

Time to dig out the number for Beyonwiz Australia.
Mark

[tonymy01]

Sounds like one of the Wiz tuners has reduced sensitivity to the other. If your reception is very marginal, this might be normal (as typically one tuner will have the antenna connected, and the other tuner comes off a daisy chain from the 1st tuner and so will also have a tiny bit more noise on it than the 1st tuner in the chain).
It could be one tuner is cactus, you can verify this quickly enough by going to ABC and initiating a recording and see what channels you can channel surf to while recording a channel. Or do it the other way around, record 7 and channel surf and see what ABC is like.
Regards

[M&M]

Tried that test tonight. I was unable to get a signal on any channel whilst recording ABC. Does this sound like a tuner has failed"? Does anyone know where to find the contact no for Beyonwiz Australia?

[grampus]

Tried that test tonight. I was unable to get a signal on any channel whilst recording ABC. Does this sound like a tuner has failed"? Does anyone know where to find the contact no for Beyonwiz Australia?

1300 889 803
Its in the manual. OOps the manual points you at the website.
then a bit of search gives this
http://www.beyonwiz.com.au/enquiry.asp

[fredofrog]

I think the tuner is as good or better than that of my Panasonic Plasma (which is good). ABC in your area may have been under maint or similar so if it's a one off don't worry. If you're close to Gore Hill (I mean too close) then that can cause interference too.

Check your antenna and connections as this is more likely the source of any problem than ABC not broadcasting correctly. If you're in an apartment then the MATV could be an issue too. ABC are trialling from their backup transmittor so it may be an answer too but unlikely. Thousands of viewers would be complaining at this time to ABC if that was the case.

[j s]

I think the tuner is as good or better than that of my Panasonic Plasma (which is good).

It's not!

Let me Illustrate. This is the list of DTV tuners that in general get excellent reception in my house with my antenna/cable setup....

Thomson STB
DSE HD STB
Digicrystal PVR
TF5000 classic
TF5000 BP
TF4400
Vision Plus PCI cards
Fusion HDTV PCI card
Several USB DTV tuners
Kogan 1080p HDTV

And the two devices that are frequently unwatchable on some channels (mostly 9 & 10 with 10 the worst)
DP-P1
DP-S1

I think the conclusion is pretty obvious.

My reception is definitely marginal (I had to rerun all the internal cabling as quad-shield) but the simple fact is that ALL the tuners I have used except the BW handle it OK for the most part.

For added emphasis the Kogan TV gets its RF feed daisy-chained from the DP-S1 but still manages to get the perfect reception that the Wiz cannot

[fredofrog]

j s

I'd imagine in Lake Macquarie using the P2 and a HD tuner in a <1yr panny plasma it is P2 first then Panny second in the reception stakes. Perhaps in your area the reception issues are different and the P2 does not work as well. Having used el cheapo STB's in the past both of these are superior for reception. We have a simple UHF setup and even reception direct from Sydney (V/U) is easy but Wyong and Newcastle are easier.

I'm sure with all the equipment you listed that your results are true enough but here P2 is #1 (don't like the coloured bar for signal strength but it works).

[Madness]

I've also been having issues with reception specificly with channel 10.
I've previously has a SD topfeild, LG hd tuner and aq DGTEC HD twin tuner and these work fine. However the Beyonwiz doesn't like channel 10 for some reason.

When I have done a check, it says signal streagth is 96% and signal quality ranges from 20% to 65% going up and down like a yo yo.

The thing is every other channel works fine.

[prl]

Hi, Madness. Some more information would be useful: especially what transmitters you're receiving from, how far away you are and what your antenna setup is. All that said, it's pretty difficult to diagnose reception problems via the forum, and you may be best served by getting in a professional antenna installer to check your setup.