Sky Magic Eye, Great Device or trouble some/ temperamental, Whats the verdict?

ronan45

Hi Guys

Just wondering I might get one of these installed in the house but I really dont want to get one in and have an unsightly black wire going up from the Living room to my bedroom to discover they are awkward finiky yokes. I did have a Video sender before that was the most annoying thing ever. Are they top notch gadgets or the type of thing that constantly needs adjustment and fixing. Also Would anyone recommend a specific model, the only one i can find is on tv trade and peats
http://www.tvtrade.ie/sky-magic-eye-en.html
http://www.peats.com/cgi-bin/catalog_v2.cgi?type=product&id=23394

steveon

Magic eyes work perfect when fitted correctly, never have any problem with them, and u could always run a temporary wire to see the finished result and if happy set about hiding the cable.

watty

When multiple output LNBFs or Satellite boxes expensive or no HD, they made some sense. Now it's more sensible to add a local Freesat HD box, which works for non-HD TVs too (Multiroom subscription is a waste of €180 a year unless you want two Sky Sports channels at the same time).

The Remote Extension control needs a good DC power path from RF2 and also a 6Mhz approx RF return path. Any problem is usually due to incorrect distribution amp / splitter or bad physical connection (little effect on TV RF).

Here are real Magic Eyes
http://www.magiceyetubes.com/

zg3409

Comared to a video sender they are much, much better. The main catch is you have to watch the same channel as the main TV.

The good points are you can watch premium channels and recordings from the main box.

If you are not sure I would get one professionally installed. It is better to use one that has "F" type connectors instead of push in connectors.

You need to use one piece of cable (no joins) and also change settings on the Sky box (hidden menu). You also need to retune the TV in the bedroom. It can be very difficult to setup for the beginner.

The best picture quality possible is only standard definition from the system even if the channel is HD.

krissovo

They work perfect and once setup you can forget about them but its only standard definition.

I think mine was €10 with shipping and I had the wiring already.

watty

zg3409 wrote: »

Comared to a video sender they are much, much better. The main catch is you have to watch the same channel as the main TV.

Er.. no.

The Sky modulator is poor Double Sideband AM, not proper VSB, so Jams the TV channel below. The Sky Modulator is noisy and has harmonics too. The Audio is only Mono.

The video senders use FM carrier instead of AM, so quality is far better if there is a signal (you can actually cable them to solve that issue) and have two separate Audio channels. They will remote control a Sky box, or ANY box that isn't IRDA though Philips had one that did IRDA too.

So, yes without a cable, getting range with video sender can be an issue, but if there is a signal, it's superior. There are even video senders with 4 SCARTs in and input selection.

Antenna

watty wrote: »

Er.. no.

The Sky modulator is poor Double Sideband AM, not proper VSB, so Jams the TV channel below.

What does it matter (double-sideband) for an in-house system ?

They are selectable from channels Ch 21 to 69, so it is surely not going to be difficult to find a channel (a) that is clear (b) that is at least 2 channels from a 'wanted' UHF channel (it does not matter about being one channel from a weak unwanted/unrequired terrestrial transmission)

At the moment terrestrial viewers (bar Freeview spillover areas) only have ONE wanted UHF channel (a single Saorview MUX) to worry about avoiding interfering with! (except perhaps the few pockets of the country with 'deflectors' still going - up to 4 more channels)

It does not matter if there is a weak/distant transmitter (than the transmitter actually being used by the viewer) on the lower adjacent channel of a modulator as it is on an in-house cable (not transmitting)

watty wrote: »

but if there is a signal, it's superior.

in ideal circumstances, yes, but for "98%" of people the signal is prone to at least some interference from wi-fi, microwave over leakage, other video senders, multipath distortion (even by people walking around the room), and overall a cabled sky-eye modulator signal would be preferred.

watty wrote: »

you can actually cable them to solve that issue

Using a cable between two video senders (and perhaps diplexing on a cable also carrying terrestrial) is beyond the scope of ordinary people

Capt'n Midnight

If you have no kids it's good for the TV in the bedroom.

Video senders are a generic option that require no cables and work with any device that has SCART output, means some wires for the infra red transmitter though. They may interfere with WiFi and visa versa - so location may be a problem.

Liameter

ronan45 wrote: »

I really dont want to get one in and have an unsightly black wire going up from the Living room to my bedroom

Why black? WF65-1 coax is available in white and only 4.8mm diameter.