• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

HDR FOX T2 - does the tuner fall over at low temperatures?

grahamlthompson said:
So would I, you would only get the problem if you were within a mile or two. Have you checked the dtg website for an alternative transmitter ?. South of Birmingham the SFN based on Bromsgrove/Lark Stoke (vertical polarised) is pretty good and in some areas Ridge Hill is usable.
Click to expand...

Yes, Lark Stoke is a possibility - about 20% of my neighbours have their aerials pointing at it. It's nearer to me than Sutton Coldfield, but very much less powerful. It's also got a better line of sight - the SC signal gets pretty close to the ground a few miles from me when it skims over the top od Hatton Hill. I would need a different aerial - my Group B won't cover it, but a Group K would cover both, so I could perhaps try that.

But everything WAS ok with the current setup until about 4 months ago, and I'm not really any nearer to finding what has changed.

WT
 
Watt Tyler said:
Yes, Lark Stoke is a possibility - about 20% of my neighbours have their aerials pointing at it. It's nearer to me than Sutton Coldfield, but very much less powerful. It's also got a better line of sight - the SC signal gets pretty close to the ground a few miles from me when it skims over the top od Hatton Hill. I would need a different aerial - my Group B won't cover it, but a Group K would cover both, so I could perhaps try that.

But everything WAS ok with the current setup until about 4 months ago, and I'm not really any nearer to finding what has changed.

WT
Click to expand...

I can get Lark Stoke with an amplified log periodic (log40) in my loft (Redditch Worcs), thanks to trees behind my house SC needs a high gain antenna on a tall mast. No amp needed for Lark Stoke with the log40 outdoors.
 
grahamlthompson said:
I can get Lark Stoke with an amplified log periodic (log40) in my loft (Redditch Worcs), thanks to trees behind my house SC needs a high gain antenna on a tall mast. No amp needed for Lark Stoke with the log40 outdoors.
Click to expand...

Looking at a map, you are probably a couple of miles further away from Lark Stoke, as a crow flies, than I am - just outside Warwick, so that's interesting. I imagine that reception might vary quite a lot from place to place within Redditch - 'cos its quite a hilly place.

WT
 
Watt Tyler said:
Looking at a map, you are probably a couple of miles further away from Lark Stoke, as a crow flies, than I am - just outside Warwick, so that's interesting. I imagine that reception might vary quite a lot from place to place within Redditch - 'cos its quite a hilly place.

WT
Click to expand...

Indeed that's why I mentioned Ridge Hill :)

Postcode here, tick detailed view will give you an idea as to SC vs Lark Stoke

http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/coveragechecker/

Look at the aerials on Google Street View for Dagnall End Lane, Redditch close to the junction with the Birmingham Road at Bordesley.
 
Watt Tyler said:
I'm still puzzled by the fact that the problem affects only the Humax and not the TV - and started happening fairly suddenly about 4 months ago. So something must have changed - but what?

WT
Click to expand...

How accurate is "about 4 months ago ...".
Sutton Coldfield switched off analogue last September (21st) and boosted Digital Signals significantly.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
HarveyB said:
How accurate is "about 4 months ago ...".
Sutton Coldfield switched off analogue last September (21st) and boosted Digital Signals significantly.
Click to expand...

8kW/10kW raised to 200kW on all muxes at Sutton Coldfield, only problem is it was 7th September and 21st September 2011 NOT 2012
 
Ezra Pound said:
8kW/10kW raised to 200kW on all muxes at Sutton Coldfield, only problem is it was 7th September and 21st September 2011 NOT 2012
Click to expand...

Precisely. Until DSO - and the boosting of SC's muxes - I couldn't get a reliable Freeview signal at all. It would work at some time but not others - so I didn't bother to buy a PVR until after DSO.

The four months to which I referred is just that. Everything worked just fine from September 2011 until December 2012 - (now just over) 4 months ago.

HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT IHAVE NOW IDENTIFIED AND FIXED THE PROBLEM!

As a result of various people's suggestions - for which I am most grateful - I went through all the components in the "supply chain" from aerial to Humax with a fine-tooth comb. The breakthrough occurred when I by-passed the Wickes (Labgear) distribution amp. Although the signal level fell, the signal QUALITY was restored to a rock-steady 100% on all muxes. I've now installed an alternative amplifier on just the feed to the Humax (and its connected TV) and everything seems fine.

So it appears that what changed 4 months ago was that the distribution amp started generating some noise which the Humax didn't like, but which didn't upset my Philips TV. [I've no idea what might cause it to do this - maybe a dodgy capacitor in its power supply, or something? It had previosuly worked for upwards of 30 years without a problem, and is STILL working - except that the Humax doesn't seem to like its output!]

I also don't really understand why something like that would affect just the Humax and not the TV. I suppose that since the Humax's tuner can handle HD signals while the TV can't, this may possibly make it more susceptible to certain types of noise - I don't know. If that were the case, I would have expected the HD mux to be the first one to give up - but that was fine, and it was COM5 and COM6 which were troublesome.

Anyway, a very big thankyou to all who have contributed to this thread!

WT
 
Watt Tyler said:
The breakthrough occurred when I by-passed the Wickes (Labgear) distribution amp. Although the signal level fell, the signal QUALITY was restored to a rock-steady 100% on all muxes. I've now installed an alternative amplifier on just the feed to the Humax (and its connected TV) and everything seems fine.
Click to expand...

If it works without an amp, albeit with reduced signal strength, why fit an amplifier? If the quality is "rock solid 100% on all muxes" then you clearly do not need an amplifier. Fitting another one is just asking for more trouble.
 

And, in a later post, I said:
The picture on my HDR-FOX-T2 keeps breaking up, sometimes to the point of being unwatchable. When this happens, the signal strength and quality bars on the i-plate (and the Signal Detection menu) indicate reasonable strength but dire quality.
 
moosey said:
If it works without an amp, albeit with reduced signal strength, why fit an amplifier? If the quality is "rock solid 100% on all muxes" then you clearly do not need an amplifier. Fitting another one is just asking for more trouble.
Click to expand...

That would be fine if the aerial were dedicated just to the Humax. But it's part of a distribution system which distributes both UHF TV and VHF radio to various points around the house. If I were to use a passive splitter, I suspect that the signal strength would fall below the 30% minimum recommended by Humax - but I have to admit that I haven't tried that. I'm using a 2-way amp as an active splitter - with one output going to the Humax and the other one going into the distribution system - and it seems to be working ok after tearing my hair out for 3 months, so I ain't going to change it unless I get further problems.

WT
 
I sympathise: I have an aerial system dating from over 20 years ago, combining signals from two antennae and mixing in a (redundant) feed from the VCR, then feeding the lot on some very long runs involving boosters in some places and attenuators in others. A digital feed was impossible at the remote ends before analogue turn-off, but it didn't matter then and now it's good enough (just).

I suppose I should re-jig it now, but it works...
 
Watt Tyler said:
I also don't really understand why something like that would affect just the Humax and not the TV.
Click to expand...
Neither do I but there have been a number of reports over the years (and not just for the HD models) that have made the same observation that Humax kit is more sensitive to amplifier problems and poorly made cable joints than other equipment.
 
I think what this thread has shown is that it is all too easy to get dragged into a line of investigation without standing back and eliminating the usual suspects. Andy Hurley on Jan 3 was willing to put money on the Distribution Amplifier. Very prophetic.

One final point, as was pointed out to me once, the use of Capital Letters is the net way of Shouting - only to be used in extreme conditions.

Martin
 
Watt Tyler said:
That would be fine if the aerial were dedicated just to the Humax. But it's part of a distribution system which distributes both UHF TV and VHF radio to various points around the house. If I were to use a passive splitter, I suspect that the signal strength would fall below the 30% minimum recommended by Humax - but I have to admit that I haven't tried that. I'm using a 2-way amp as an active splitter - with one output going to the Humax and the other one going into the distribution system - and it seems to be working ok after tearing my hair out for 3 months, so I ain't going to change it unless I get further problems.

WT
Click to expand...

Think you looking at it the wrong way. An amplifier adds noise as well as increasing the signal level. A splitter adds no noise just reduces the signal strength. Right way is use a splitter first then add a low noise amp to the input if you need it. Chances are your base signal is well above the 3.5dB loss that a 2 way splitter will introduce.

Best source of info for all terrestrial info is here. Link to splitters and amplifiers.

http://www.aerialsandtv.com/ampsandsplitters.html#Splitters

Check out the aerial choice info as well.
 
MartinOnline said:
One final point, as was pointed out to me once, the use of Capital Letters is the net way of Shouting - only to be used in extreme conditions.
Martin
Click to expand...

If you're referring to my line of caps proclaiming that the problem was fixed, I considered that that was justified because that bit could easily have been missed by someone speed-reading the overall message.

WT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top