Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Digital Signal Meter

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    Mux 2 E33 low power. aerial with amp, Wideband

    Digiair Pro signal meter
    Signal strength 50.4 dbµv
    SNR
    23.0 dbµv
    Pre Ber
    3.4 E-03
    Post-BER
    >1.0 E-08
    MER
    25 db

    Sony TV with signal meter
    Signal Quality- 100
    Signal Strength 92
    Pre-Viterbi---- 2.90 e-3
    C/N
    23
    UEC
    412
    Post Viterbi--- 0
    5s
    0
    AGC
    155

    Mux 2 E33 low power. aerial w/o amp, Group K, 18 elements

    Digiair Pro signal meter
    Signal strength <30.0 dbµv
    Not locked

    Sony TV with signal meter
    Signal Quality- 23
    Signal Strength 9
    Pre-Viterbi---- 4.88 e-2
    C/N
    17
    UEC
    6621
    Post Viterbi--- 1.60 e-4
    5s
    1.03 e-4
    AGC
    201


  • Options
    #63
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,523 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Souriau wrote: »
    Someone asked how good is the signal meter on Sony TV

    I recently posted, thinking out loud, that I would compare the Sony TV readings with the Digiair pro meter readings.

    Something I've noticed after checking/installing a couple of aerials for family etc. the meter pre-BER readings never go better than 1.5 E-04 at the aerial, all the aerials used are approx 60 miles from Mullaghanish with good signal strength.


  • Options
    #64
    mrdtv2010
    Registered Users Posts: 556 ✭✭✭mrdtv2010


    Souriau wrote: »
    Mux 2 E33 low power. aerial with amp, Wideband

    Digiair Pro signal meter
    Signal strength 50.4 dbµv
    SNR
    23.0 dbµv
    Pre Ber
    3.4 E-03
    Post-BER
    >1.0 E-08
    MER
    25 db

    Sony TV with signal meter
    Signal Quality- 100
    Signal Strength 92
    Pre-Viterbi---- 2.90 e-3
    C/N
    23
    UEC
    412
    Post Viterbi--- 0
    5s
    0
    AGC
    155

    Mux 2 E33 low power. aerial w/o amp, Group K, 18 elements

    Digiair Pro signal meter
    Signal strength <30.0 dbµv
    Not locked

    Sony TV with signal meter
    Signal Quality- 23
    Signal Strength 9
    Pre-Viterbi---- 4.88 e-2
    C/N
    17
    UEC
    6621
    Post Viterbi--- 1.60 e-4
    5s
    1.03 e-4
    AGC
    201

    Souriau: the modern Sony DVB-T2 TVs are the most informative for BER and C/N. Other T2 units are not as interesting and the i-CAN meter is plain wrong on DVB-T2.. The now defunct Nokia 221T was the closest approximation you could get to a professional meter unit, it read out pre and post BER, C/N, and signal strength in dBm. It was MPEG2 2k/8k but Nokia pulled out of the STB market years ago.


  • Options
    #65
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    I have a Nokia 221T, I must check it out.
    I was almost ready to throw it out I thought it was just 2k, early STB.
    Thanks for that info.


  • Options
    #66
    mrdtv2010
    Registered Users Posts: 556 ✭✭✭mrdtv2010


    Souriau wrote: »
    I have a Nokia 221T, I must check it out.
    I was almost ready to throw it out I thought it was just 2k, early STB.
    Thanks for that info.

    I think it did 8k because I remember early 8k tests they did in the UK, it worked fine and it was for Pan - European markets. I gave mine away: big mistake as no other consumer box gives an accurate read out in dBm AFAIK.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    Since a lot of consumers had written in here having problems with digital TV signal so I decided to check on how low the signal can go before it break up
    I had compare both Muliplexes on Saorview

    I been checking signal strength between Mux 1 and Mux 2.
    I received my Saorview signal from Clermont Carn


    Mux 1||Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter|
    47.7 dBµv| signal strength|45.7 dBµv
    30 dB| SNR|29 dB
    1.0e-4| Pre BER|1.0e-4
    1.0e-8| Post BER|1.0e-8
    30 dB| MER|28 dB
    |Humax HDR-Fox T2 signal meter|
    47|Strength|44
    100|Quality|100
    Both Muxs are perfect, no breakup


    I put in a 9dB Attenuator to reduce the signal strength and again I did my measurement tests
    Mux 1|| Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter|
    38.8 dBµv| signal strength|37.0 dBµv
    24.3 dB| SNR|21.0 dB
    3.3e-3| Pre BER|3.9e-3
    1.0e-8| Post BER|3.9e-8
    25 dB| MER|22 dB
    |Humax HDR-Fox T2 signal meter|
    37|Strength|27
    100|Quality|80
    Again like above, both Muxs are still perfect with no breakup


    I put in a 12dB Attenuator to reduce the signal strength and again I did my measurement tests
    Mux 1|| Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter|
    35.7 dBµv| signal strength|34 dBµv
    21.1 dB| SNR|18.0 dB
    6.7e-3| Pre BER|3.0e-2
    2.3e-8| Post BER|2.5e-5
    22 dB| MER|20 dB
    |Humax HDR-Fox T2 signal meter|
    37|Strength|20
    100|Quality|20
    At this point, RTE1 on Mux 1 is still very good while Mux 2 is breaking up full time
    See pictures attached below


    I put in a 15dB Attenuator to reduce the signal strength even more and again I did my measurement tests
    Mux 1|| Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter|
    32 dBµv| signal strength|30 dBµv
    18 dB| SNR|
    2.5e-2| Pre BER|
    9.6e-6| Post BER|
    20 dB| MER|
    |Humax HDR-Fox T2 signal meter|
    28|Strength|10
    90|Quality|10
    At this point, RTE1 on Mux 1 is watchable but on Mux 2 is not available

    .


  • Options
    #68
    Oscarziggy
    Registered Users Posts: 600 ✭✭✭Oscarziggy


    Very informative post thanks.
    If you think about it the number of people who have problems and are posting here hopefully isn't the "tip of an iceburg".
    Will be very interesting when RTE1 SD ceases to be transmitted.
    I still can't really understand how bringing another MUX on stream has created so many problems across such a wide range of transmitters.
    Regards


  • Options
    #69
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    The Cush wrote: »
    I Something I've noticed after checking/installing a couple of aerials for family etc. the meter pre-BER readings never go better than 1.5 E-04 at the aerial, all the aerials used are approx 60 miles from Mullaghanish with good signal strength.

    I also noticed that with my meter and that is shown with the measurements test I done last night
    As you can see the best Pre BER is 1.0 e-04.


  • Options
    #70
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,556 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Looking at those figures, there is a significant difference in the behaviour of the two signals. Mux1 is much more robust than mux2, giving better signal recovery at lower signal levels. This must be down to the encoding. Could mux2 be using a different compression/multiplexor.

    Also mux2 has a lower signal at all tests but that could be a local reception issue.

    Mux2 has three hd channels but mux1 has only one, this could be significant but it should not be.


  • Options
    #71
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    I don't have a direct line of sight to the transmitter.
    My home is in the mountains and the signal maybe echo hence why the different, as someone else says on another forum that different frequency does react different to local enviroment.
    Before the switched over from analouge to digital, I used to get my RTE analouge from Cairn Hill, and digital as well, on c47, since last Ocotber 2012, Newry also have c47 and causing interference so I change to Trustmore then found that I can received from Clermont Carn even the mountain is blocking my direct line of sight.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Peter Rhea
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭Peter Rhea


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Looking at those figures, there is a significant difference in the behaviour of the two signals. Mux1 is much more robust than mux2, giving better signal recovery at lower signal levels.

    What do you see in those pre & post BER figures to justify the use of words like 'significant' & 'much more robust'?
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    This must be down to the encoding. Could mux2 be using a different compression/multiplexor . . .

    Mux2 has three hd channels but mux1 has only one, this could be significant but it should not be

    Mux 2 is the same 64 QAM, with 2/3 FEC code rate as mux 1.


  • Options
    #73
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,556 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Peter Rhea wrote: »
    What do you see in those pre & post BER figures to justify the use of words like 'significant' & 'much more robust'?



    Mux 2 is the same 64 QAM, with 2/3 FEC code rate as mux 1.

    If you look at the last reading for mux1 and the 2nd last reading for mux2 (the last mux2 is zero) they both have the same S/N ratio, but the other readings (BER,Strength,Quality) are all significantly better for mux1. All the readings show better performance for mux1.

    It is not just the encoding method used, it is the multiplexor itself that may be different. Are they using identical multiplexors? Is one a 'better' one? Is one a statmux and the other not?

    I do not know the answers to these questions, but the two muxes perform differently, particularly at low signal levels, with mux1 winning. Only 2RN can answer these points.


  • Options
    #74
    Peter Rhea
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭Peter Rhea


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    If you look at the last reading for mux1 and the 2nd last reading for mux2 (the last mux2 is zero) they both have the same S/N ratio, but the other readings (BER,Strength,Quality) are all significantly better for mux1. All the readings show better performance for mux1.

    I don't know enough about error correction to comment definitively. Is 0.0000096 significantly better than 0.000025? Who knows how accurately the meter measures S/N & MER?
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    ]It is not just the encoding method used, it is the multiplexor itself that may be different. Are they using identical multiplexors? Is one a 'better' one? Is one a statmux and the other not?

    What has stat-muxing got to do with error correction?
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    but the two muxes perform differently, particularly at low signal levels, with mux1 winning.

    Says these 1 series of readings taken on 1 meter, so yeah, must be true.


  • Options
    #75
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,556 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Peter Rhea wrote: »
    I don't know enough about error correction to comment definitively. Is 0.0000096 significantly better than 0.000025? Who knows how accurately the meter measures S/N & MER?



    What has stat-muxing got to do with error correction?



    Says these 1 series of readings taken on 1 meter, so yeah, must be true.

    Look, we have a whole rake of viewers who are complaining that mux2 is not coming through as well as mux1 and we have one set of detailed readings that show exactly the same thing. If you look at the detail of the readings, mux2 performs worse than mux1 right the way through, so yea - must be so.


  • Options
    #76
    Peter Rhea
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭Peter Rhea


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Look, we have a whole rake of viewers who are complaining that mux2 is not coming through as well as mux1 and we have one set of detailed readings that show exactly the same thing.

    Detailed doesn't mean the same thing as accurate. I think you're just looking for anything to back up your theory that mux 1 is 'better' than mux 2. Something to do with encoders, was it?


  • Options
    #77
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,556 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Peter Rhea wrote: »
    Detailed doesn't mean the same thing as accurate. I think you're just looking for anything to back up your theory that mux 1 is 'better' than mux 2. Something to do with encoders, was it?

    All the readings are taken, as far as I know, on the same piece of equipment at the same time for both muxes and are therefore comparable. [No weather or callibration drift, etc.]. Accuracy is not an issue here.

    The readings show a significant bias towards mux1. Therefore, I assume there is a difference between the tow muxes. The two muxes are broadcast from the same mast at essentially the same frequency and received with the same aerial and come down the same cable to the meter. This points to a difference prior to broadcast. The only bit that could cause a difference is the encoder. The system is live, so I assume they RTE are using the best kit, so why the difference?

    Maybe you have a better idea of the cause of all the viewers having trouble, and the readings in the above post.


  • Options
    #78
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    All the readings are taken, as far as I know, on the same piece of equipment at the same time for both muxes and are therefore comparable. [No weather or callibration drift, etc.]. Accuracy is not an issue here.

    The readings between the two muliplexes was taken at the same time, using the same aerial and cable to the TV.
    Yes, with the same meter for the mesurements
    I will take another measurements later.


  • Options
    #79
    Peter Rhea
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭Peter Rhea


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    All the readings are taken, as far as I know, on the same piece of equipment at the same time for both muxes and are therefore comparable. [No weather or callibration drift, etc.]. Accuracy is not an issue here.

    You (or I) have no idea how accurately this meter measures S/N & MER, so can't say definitively that the BER readings produced by similar S/N & MER readings are comparable.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Maybe you have a better idea of the cause of all the viewers having trouble

    Their aerial setups are no good? The same 'idea' that myself & others have been posting here this past 3 weeks or so?


  • Options
    #80
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    62.9 dBµv | signal strength | 60.7 dBµv
    >31 dB | SNR | >31 dB
    1.1 E-3 | Pre BER | 1.7 e-03
    1.00E-08 | Post BER | 1.00E-08
    0 | UCB | 0
    30.3 db | MER | 30.4 dB
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    100 |Signal Quality | 100
    100 |Signal Strength | 99
    2.5e-5 |Pre Viterbi | 2.00e-06
    30 |C/N | 30
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 0
    0 |5s | 0
    129 |AGC | 135



    9 dB attenuator reduction
    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    53.4 dBµv | signal strength | 52.2 dBµv
    >31 dB | SNR | 30.1 dB
    1.2 E-3 | Pre BER | 1.6 e-03
    1.00E-08 | Post BER | 1.00E-08
    0 | UCB | 0
    29.9 db | MER | 29.6 dB
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    100 |Signal Quality | 100
    95 |Signal Strength | 93
    3.5e-5 |Pre Viterbi | 6.00e-06
    30 |C/N | 29
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 0
    0 |5s | 0
    147 |AGC | 154



    15 dB attenuator reduction
    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    47.6 dBµv | signal strength | 45.6 dBµv
    30 dB | SNR | 28.2 dB
    1.8 E-3 | Pre BER | 2.3 e-03
    1.00E-08 | Post BER | 1.00E-08
    0 | UCB | 0
    29.2 db | MER | 27.8 dB
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    100 |Signal Quality | 100
    92 |Signal Strength | 82
    32.9e-5 |Pre Viterbi | 8.00e-06
    29 |C/N | 29
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 0
    0 |5s | 0
    157 |AGC | 165



    21 dB attenuator reduction
    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    41.5 dBµv | signal strength | 39.8 dBµv
    26.2 dB | SNR | 23.1 dB
    2.4 E-3 | Pre BER | 5.5 e-03
    1.00E-08 | Post BER | 1.00E-08
    0 | UCB | 0
    26.7 db | MER | 24.3 dB
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    100 |Signal Quality | 100
    74 |Signal Strength | 54
    6.0e-5 |Pre Viterbi | 4.00e-05
    28 |C/N | 26
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 0
    0 |5s | 0
    170 |AGC | 180



    27 dB attenuator reduction
    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    35.8 dBµv | signal strength | 33.7 dBµv
    21.0 dB | SNR | 17.1 dB
    9.6 E-3 | Pre BER | 4.4 e-02
    1.00E-07 | Post BER | 2.8 E-04
    0 | UCB | 99
    22.7 db | MER | 20.5 dB
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    100 |Signal Quality | 100
    46 |Signal Strength | 26
    6.7e-5 |Pre Viterbi | 2.00e-03
    25 |C/N | 22
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 0
    0 |5s | 0
    183 |AGC | 191



    33 dB attenuator reduction
    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    <30 dBµv | signal strength | <30 dBµv
    | SNR |
    | Pre BER |
    | Post BER |
    | UCB |
    | MER |
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    88 |Signal Quality | 20
    22 |Signal Strength | 9
    7.95e-3 |Pre Viterbi | 4.62e-02
    21 |C/N | 17
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 1.50 e-03
    0 |5s | 5.7 e-05
    194 |AGC | 201


    The Sony TV, KDL-26EX320, was able to received and watchable picture at less than 30 dBµv while the Emitor DigiAir was not able to locked onto the signal to give me any reading.


  • Options
    #81
    Oscarziggy
    Registered Users Posts: 600 ✭✭✭Oscarziggy


    Some tests on my Sony KDL32W40XX this morning.....

    SIGNAL STRENGTH HIGH
    RTE1 HD .Pre Viterbi 4.69 e-4 5s 4.60 e-4
    Post Viterbi 0 COFDM AGC -247

    RTE2 HD Pre Viterbi 3.07 e-4 5s 2.87 e-4
    Post Viterbi 0 COFDM AGC -282

    All these readings are constantly counting up or down apart from the Post Viterbi.
    The "hidden" test cards can be displayed as shown in the photos on this forum.

    Out of interst this Sony TV does not have a HD tuner BUT it receives RTE 2 HD without any problems (displaying as a HD signal) whereas it will not display BBC/ITV/CH4 HD channels.

    Moving the same aerial directly into the View21(non Saorview approved) box and rescanning finds channels on CH23 and CH26 from Mt Leinster --- then wipes some out after 10 sedconds including RTE 1 HD.
    RTE1 SD remains as a channel in the epg with "rescan required"
    The channels that are removed also include all the "hidden" ones.

    Just for information.
    Regards


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Peter Rhea
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭Peter Rhea


    Oscarziggy wrote: »
    Out of interst this Sony TV does not have a HD tuner BUT it receives RTE 2 HD without any problems (displaying as a HD signal) whereas it will not display BBC/ITV/CH4 HD channels.

    By 'HD tuner' you would mean Freeview HD, which uses the newer DVB-T2 transmission standard.

    Saorview is all DVB-T.


  • Options
    #83
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    Oscarziggy wrote: »
    Some tests on my Sony KDL32W40XX this morning.....

    SIGNAL STRENGTH HIGH
    RTE1 HD .Pre Viterbi 4.69 e-4 5s 4.60 e-4
    Post Viterbi 0 COFDM AGC -247

    Just for information.
    Regards
    Is the "5s" values reading 4.60 e-4?
    Is the AGC a minus reading? -247 or just 247?


  • Options
    #84
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,523 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    I have 2 Sony TVs but for myself I wouldn't rely on the readings on the TV as there are amps and long cable runs in the system, I will be taking down my VHF aerial soonish and will stick the meter on the cable before the combiner at the aerial.


  • Options
    #85
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    I added a setback booster of 12 dB
    Mux 1 | |Mux 2
    |Emitor DigiAir Pro signal meter |
    76.6 dBµv | signal strength | 75.5 dBµv
    >31 dB | SNR | >31 dB
    3.6 E-3 | Pre BER | 1.7 e-03
    1.00E-08 | Post BER | 1.00E-08
    0 | UCB | 0
    >30 db | MER | 30.8 dB
    | |
    |Sony System Information|
    100 |Signal Quality | 100
    100 |Signal Strength | 100
    4.0 e-5 |Pre Viterbi | 4.00e-06
    30 |C/N | 30
    0 |UEC | 0
    0 |Post Viterbi | 0
    0 |5s | 0
    91 |AGC | 102


  • Options
    #86
    Oscarziggy
    Registered Users Posts: 600 ✭✭✭Oscarziggy


    Souriau wrote: »
    Is the "5s" values reading 4.60 e-4?
    Is the AGC a minus reading? -247 or just 247?

    This is what is displayed on the screen.
    Not sure if it is a minus or just a (-) for a space
    I can't check right now but if I spot anything different later I'll repost.

    Peter Rhea.
    Thanks for explaining that ......

    The Cush.
    The readings were taken with the aerial direct from chimney into Sony ...
    They mean nothing to me --- I didn't even know I could display such
    things.
    Regards


  • Options
    #87
    The Cush
    Registered Users Posts: 15,523 ✭✭✭✭The Cush


    Oscarziggy wrote: »
    This is what is displayed on the screen.
    Not sure if it is a minus or just a (-) for a space

    Its a minus.

    What aerial are you using for Mt Leinster? Do you use a masthead amp?


  • Options
    #88
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    The Cush wrote: »
    Its a minus.

    What aerial are you using for Mt Leinster? Do you use a masthead amp?

    Does that mean his TV aerial setup is over powered?
    Also the "5s" value is also showing error which should be o. his was showing 4.60 e-4 for RTE1, Mux 2 and 2.87 e-4 for RTE2, Mux 1


  • Options
    #89
    Peter Rhea
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭Peter Rhea


    Souriau wrote: »
    Also the "5s" value is also showing error which should be o. his was showing 4.60 e-4 for RTE1, Mux 2 and 2.87 e-4 for RTE2, Mux 1

    Does your tv not show 5s for both pre & post Viterbi? (Is this BER averaged over 5 seconds?)

    10799551914_759cecb657_n.jpg


  • Options
    #90
    Souriau
    Registered Users Posts: 788 ✭✭✭Souriau


    Peter Rhea wrote: »
    Does your tv not show 5s for both pre & post Viterbi? (Is this BER averaged over 5 seconds?)

    10799551914_759cecb657_n.jpg
    My TV setup is different from what you shown above.
    On my Sony TV the "5s" is for the Post Viterbi error rate, Post BER.
    Yes, it is an average over 5 seconds for the Post BER or Post Viterbi
    Perfect setup should be 0 for both Pre Viterbi and Post Viterbi and the 5s also 0
    UEC also 0
    As for AGC, I am not sure what it should be, maybe 0


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Oscarziggy
    Registered Users Posts: 600 ✭✭✭Oscarziggy


    I've had a chance to look again .
    I wrote it down as shown on screen including the (-).
    The Post Viterbi is always shown as "0".
    The Pre Viterbi is contantly changing. Up and down.
    The "5s" is always "0"
    The "e-4" is always "e-4".
    There was one other reading I missed, UEC which is always "0".

    I am using an 8 element Group A aerial with no amp/booster horizontally polarised and my home is not line of sight to Mt Leinster across the sea.

    We have a very wet, misty day over here ....but that hasn't altered signal strength.

    Out of interest RTE1 SD has no epg and is showing RTEjr without a DOG.
    The RTEjr is not showing the same programme as the RTEjr on RTE2 HD.

    If I can work out how to post a screen grab .........
    Regards


Advertisement