Saorview in Apartment

James__10

I'm living in an apartment and I have sky television in the sitting room the sky dish and aerial wire is too the front of the apartment.

I have a Saorview box and I'm thinking about buying a tv for the bedroom which is situated in the back of the apartment no where near the sky dish or aerial wire.

How would I go about connecting the Saorview box to the tv with no aerial wire or dish nearby ?

Peter Rhea

Sensible thing would be to provide an aerial feed to the bedroom, rather than trying to feed the output of the box to the tv.

If you're getting a new tv, it will work with Saorview without the box, unless you really go out of your way to find one that doesn't.

James__10

Peter Rhea wrote: »

Sensible thing would be to provide an aerial feed to the bedroom, rather than trying to feed the output of the box to the tv.

If you're getting a new tv, it will work with Saorview without the box, unless you really go out of your way to find one that doesn't.

What would be the best way to provide a Aerial feed to the bedroom? Basically just get a longer aerial wire and take it from the front to the back of the apartment?

winston_1

Yes

Peter Rhea

James__10 wrote: »

What would be the best way to provide a Aerial feed to the bedroom? Basically just get a longer aerial wire and take it from the front to the back of the apartment?

Yes, unless there already happens to be some internal cabling you can make use of.

lertsnim

James__10 wrote: »

How would I go about connecting the Saorview box to the tv with no aerial wire or dish nearby ?

Depending on where you are, you could get lucky using rabbit ears. Saorview works perfectly for me and the aerial is behind the tv so I cannot see it.

James__10

lertsnim wrote: »

Depending on where you are, you could get lucky using rabbit ears. Saorview works perfectly for me and the aerial is behind the tv so I cannot see it.

As in location wise? How much would these "Rabbit Ears" cost?

The Cush

James__10 wrote: »

How much would these "Rabbit Ears" cost?

A range of indoor aerials can be seen here - http://cpc.farnell.com/tv-indoor-set-top&getResults=true

winston_1

James__10 wrote: »

As in location wise? How much would these "Rabbit Ears" cost?

Rabbit Ears are not suitable. They are VHF aerial, only good for FM radio now. The best indoor aerial is the Telecam TCE2000. Don't get an amplified version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=telecam+tce&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=12571770060&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=573540&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6556598951718843677&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6g483z8ogw_b

James__10

winston_1 wrote: »

Rabbit Ears are not suitable. They are VHF aerial, only good for FM radio now. The best indoor aerial is the Telecam TCE2000. Don't get an amplified version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=telecam+tce&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=12571770060&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=573540&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6556598951718843677&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6g483z8ogw_b

Easy to set up?

Lissavane

winston_1 wrote: »

Rabbit Ears are not suitable. They are VHF aerial, only good for FM radio now. The best indoor aerial is the Telecam TCE2000. Don't get an amplified version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=telecam+tce&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=12571770060&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=573540&hvnetw=g&hvrand=6556598951718843677&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_6g483z8ogw_b

I'm not seeking to contradict you, Winston, and it makes absolute sense that you should need a dedicated UHF aerial to receive saorview but the following is my experience:

I'm in South Mayo, about 18 miles from the Castlebar transmitter and the saorview website recommends that I use Maghera. Some time before saorview started broadcasting my roof-top uhf aerial blew down but I didn't replace it as I rarely watched Irish terrestrial channels apart from TG4 and I thought I'd leave it until saorview started.

Subsequently, I bought the cheapest saorview stb that Tesco stocked and thought I'd give it a try before I arranged for a new outdoor aerial to be fitted. I had a 2 arm telescopic indoor vhf aerial that came with an Aldi portable tv and, of course, had never pulled in a uhf signal on that tv. Connected it to the saorview box, scanned and, lo and behold I got a full saorview channel list. After maybe 30 mins of tweaking I found I could view all the saorview channels with the aerial lying almost flat against the wall on the mantelpiece beside the tv. And the signal is from Castlebar. The arms are about 80cm long and set in a Y formation with an angle of about 45degrees between them.

I'd describe the viewing experience as 95% because there's a sound glitch very occasionally - if there's a picture glitch, it's not perceptible. People who have had new aerials installed around here seem to experience the same sound glitch.

I don't know how or why this works for me. I'm 100m from nearest house and have no external antennae other than a sat dish connected to an fta box. Never had sky, upc or anything of that nature.

That's my experience. I know it shouldn't work but it does.

Would appreciate any comments.

Peter Rhea

Lissavane wrote: »

I don't know how or why this works for me.

It works because the signal is there at sufficient strength to work, regardless of any deficiencies the aerial might have at UHF frequencies. Probably helps that Castlebar Saorview is at the bottom of the UHF tv band, although if you try a manual scan on channel 48, you'll probably get Maghera too.

When considering coverage from the Castlebar site, you have to bear in mind that even though it isn't a high power site, the transmitting aerials are over 1500 ft. asl & there isn't much to the south to cause obstructions.

The Cush

Lissavane wrote: »

I'm in South Mayo, about 18 miles from the Castlebar transmitter and the saorview website recommends that I use Maghera.

...

After maybe 30 mins of tweaking I found I could view all the saorview channels with the aerial lying almost flat against the wall on the mantelpiece beside the tv. And the signal is from Castlebar.

Note the caveat on the coverage checker site

Coverage is indicative only.

Local environment may cause variations in computer estimated level.

We suggest you consult an installer to confirm coverage in your area if you have any doubts.

The coverage checker isn't 100% accurate for every location and doesn't include overlapping coverage areas.

As Peter says you're in a strong signal area, a wire coat hanger could work just as easily.

Even the experts say RF reception is a back art.

Tony

As an experiment you might try shortening the arms on the rabbits ears if possible, as UHF is higher frequency than the VHF it was originally intended for. Would be interesting to see if you get any improvement.

Lissavane wrote: »

That's my experience. I know it shouldn't work but it does.

Would appreciate any comments.

winston_1

There is always the exception that breaks the rule. 30 minutes to get setup. Just as well you are not paying for labour. There is the possibility that something might change in the future and you have to start again. Examples are nearby building work, nearby trees growing, etc.

Lissavane

Tony wrote: »

As an experiment you might try shortening the arms on the rabbits ears if possible, as UHF is higher frequency than the VHF it was originally intended for. Would be interesting to see if you get any improvement.

Hi Tony and everyone who replied to me,

I just tried shortening the arms and found that even a 1cm reduction on each arm caused intermittant picture freezes and frequent sound glitches. There are 4 telescopic elements in each arm, 9 point something cms each, so I tried contracting the elements one by one down to the minimum of c10cm - the picture was frozen at every setting.
I didn't try adjusting the angle of approx 45 degrees between the arms because it's working almost perfectly (I'd say perfectly as others in this area with professionally installed outdoor antennae experience the same occasional sound glitches that I do) and the angle might be harder to restore than the arm length if I mess it up. There are little black plastic/rubber caps at the ends of the elements and, excluding those and without taking the thing apart, the total length of each arm from the base screw seems to be 80cm.
I don't know if the 80cm length is standard for these portable aerials or if it's a german thing - I got it with an Aldi portable TV.

Tony

Really you need to shorten each element by the same amount, I'd start at 50% and go shorter or longer from there by small increments. Could well be though that the antenna is close to a half wave when fully extended so this may well be the height of its capability on UHF

Lissavane wrote: »

Hi Tony and everyone who replied to me,

I just tried shortening the arms and found that even a 1cm reduction on each arm caused intermittant picture freezes and frequent sound glitches. .

TAFKAlawhec

Two things you can try with a "rabbit ears" to try and work on UHF...

1 - simple dipole. Shorten both elements to their minimum and then have them lying parallel to the ground with the tips of each element facing 180 degrees from each other. The Saorview mux from Castlebar is (if my memory's right) channel 22, which means it's centre frequency is 482MHz. The wavelength of 482MHz is 300/482 = 0.6225 metres or 62.25cm. Divide it by two to get the half wavelength which gives you 31.12cm, or round it to 31cm. Take a ruler or a tape measure and try and extend the elements so that from tip to tip it is 31cm. Try and keep the elements the same length, taking into account the gap between the two at it's base. This should now be resonant with channel 22 from Castlebar though making it slightly shorter *might* work a little better (taking into account something called "velocity factor", an additional 1cm reduction might work, might not). point the aerial perpendicular (i.e. broadside) to the Castlebar transmitter. pointing the tips up a little bit (10 to 30 degrees) so they form a broad "V" shape may help if reception is difficult.

2 - half-rhombic. Follow the same as above up in shortening both elements to their minimum, parallel to the ground and have each element tip 180 degrees from each other. Now fully extend the elements. Then pull both elements (assuming the aerial is in front of you) back towards you so that they make an acute angle of somewhere between 30 to 60 degrees between the two elements - keep both elements parallel to the ground while you do that - so that you create a "V" shape with its widest end being the gap between the two tips and the narrowest being at the aerial base. Now point the aerial at the Castlebar transmitter with the bottom of the V aimed at the transmitter. Raising the back of the "V" where the tips are may slightly improve things. If reception is still glitchy, start with the angle of the V at 60 degrees and progressively reduce the angle to check if reception is better, standing back each time to check - at some point you'll probably hit a "sweet spot" angle where reducing the angle any further will see reception suddenly get worse.

In terms of aerial footprint, (1) should take up less space on account of the elements being shortened, while (2) has the advantage - as long as each element can extend at least 65cm or so - of having a small amount of gain, slightly sharper directional properties compared to (1) and can cover a wider range of frequencies (for example when the second multiplex eventually starts). However the above applies more in open space - in an indoor building other factors come into play like reflections and interference so most bets are off. In both cases if you can place the aerial on a north-facing window sill (assuming the Castlebar transmitter is to you north) should give you your best hope.

Peter Rhea

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

2 - half-rhombic. Follow the same as above up in shortening both elements to their minimum, parallel to the ground and have each element tip 180 degrees from each other. Now fully extend the elements. Then pull both elements (assuming the aerial is in front of you) back towards you so that they make an acute angle of somewhere between 30 to 60 degrees between the two elements - keep both elements parallel to the ground while you do that - so that you create a "V" shape with its widest end being the gap between the two tips and the narrowest being at the aerial base.

Maybe that's what Lissavane has hit on purely by experimentation?

I wonder if 'lying almost flat' refers to the horizontal plane (the mantelpiece) or vertical (against the wall).

Lissavane wrote: »

After maybe 30 mins of tweaking I found I could view all the saorview channels with the aerial lying almost flat against the wall on the mantelpiece beside the tv. And the signal is from Castlebar. The arms are about 80cm long and set in a Y formation with an angle of about 45degrees between them.

This description made me think of those log-periodic aerials with the elements angled forward.

Lissavane

TAFKAlawhec wrote: »

Two things you can try with a "rabbit ears" to try and work on UHF...

1 - simple dipole. Shorten both elements to their minimum and then have them lying parallel to the ground with the tips of each element facing 180 degrees from each other. The Saorview mux from Castlebar is (if my memory's right) channel 22, which means it's centre frequency is 482MHz. The wavelength of 482MHz is 300/482 = 0.6225 metres or 62.25cm. Divide it by two to get the half wavelength which gives you 31.12cm, or round it to 31cm. Take a ruler or a tape measure and try and extend the elements so that from tip to tip it is 31cm. Try and keep the elements the same length, taking into account the gap between the two at it's base. This should now be resonant with channel 22 from Castlebar though making it slightly shorter *might* work a little better (taking into account something called "velocity factor", an additional 1cm reduction might work, might not). point the aerial perpendicular (i.e. broadside) to the Castlebar transmitter. pointing the tips up a little bit (10 to 30 degrees) so they form a broad "V" shape may help if reception is difficult.

2 - half-rhombic. Follow the same as above up in shortening both elements to their minimum, parallel to the ground and have each element tip 180 degrees from each other. Now fully extend the elements. Then pull both elements (assuming the aerial is in front of you) back towards you so that they make an acute angle of somewhere between 30 to 60 degrees between the two elements - keep both elements parallel to the ground while you do that - so that you create a "V" shape with its widest end being the gap between the two tips and the narrowest being at the aerial base. Now point the aerial at the Castlebar transmitter with the bottom of the V aimed at the transmitter. Raising the back of the "V" where the tips are may slightly improve things. If reception is still glitchy, start with the angle of the V at 60 degrees and progressively reduce the angle to check if reception is better, standing back each time to check - at some point you'll probably hit a "sweet spot" angle where reducing the angle any further will see reception suddenly get worse.

In terms of aerial footprint, (1) should take up less space on account of the elements being shortened, while (2) has the advantage - as long as each element can extend at least 65cm or so - of having a small amount of gain, slightly sharper directional properties compared to (1) and can cover a wider range of frequencies (for example when the second multiplex eventually starts). However the above applies more in open space - in an indoor building other factors come into play like reflections and interference so most bets are off. In both cases if you can place the aerial on a north-facing window sill (assuming the Castlebar transmitter is to you north) should give you your best hope.

Thank you for this detailed info, TAFKAlawhec. I'll try what you suggest next week and report back.

Lissavane

Peter Rhea wrote: »

Maybe that's what Lissavane has hit on purely by experimentation?
I wonder if 'lying almost flat' refers to the horizontal plane (the mantelpiece) or vertical (against the wall).

This description made me think of those log-periodic aerials with the elements angled forward.

Thank you for the reply Peter. I'm referring to the vertical plane, against the wall. The tips of the elements rest against the wall and the base of the V (think I mistakenly called it a Y previously) rests on the mantelpiece about 10cm from the wall. If I change that distance, I get more sound glitches.

The Castlebar transmitter is north but the wall the aerial's lying against is roughly northwest.

I'll experiment next week after the weather breaks and report back!

James__10

I went out and bought a indoor aerial and the only stations I'm receiving are Irish ones I can't seem to find any uk channels

Few pictures in the attachments below!

winston_1

Well you are in Ireland. Foreign channels are out of area for which you will probably need a high gain outdoor aerial. Remember an outdoor aerial 10 metres high is recommended for local channels even.

That indoor aerial you bought is a cheap nasty type anyway. If you must use an indoor aerial get a decent one (still not guaranteed to get foreign channels though).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/TELECAM-TCE2000-performance-indoor-aerial/dp/B000G73ZIQ

James__10

I have sky in the sitting room of the apartment could I not just get the sky eye?

Peter Rhea

The 'Sky eye' is just a sender unit that converts infrared remote control signals to radio signals.

The Sky box still needs to be linked to the tv in question via coaxial cable.

A wireless video sender is probably what you have in mind.

James__10

Peter Rhea wrote: »

The 'Sky eye' is just a sender unit that converts infrared remote control signals to radio signals.

The Sky box still needs to be linked to the tv in question via coaxial cable.

A wireless video sender is probably what you have in mind.

Sorry if I come across as a nuisance but I haven't a clue when it come to all things tv and aerials etc

So basically if I buy a wireless video sender I can watch sky in the bedroom ? Change channels etc from the bedroom when the sky box is actually in a different room?

Peter Rhea

Assuming your apartment is a typical size & the walls don't stop the radio signals in their tracks, you should be able to use a wireless sender to view the Sky box signal in another room & send the remote commands back to the box.

Senders that use 5.8 gHz frequency should have less interference to contend with than those using 2.4 gHz.

FREETV

James__10 wrote: »

I went out and bought a indoor aerial and the only stations I'm receiving are Irish ones I can't seem to find any uk channels

Few pictures in the attachments below!

Those silver metal rods are for VHF so it is useless to even bother extending them, the loop is for the UHF Saorview and Freeview UK channels. You would have been much better off with a non amplified Telecam indoor aerial situated on a window sill pointing towards whatever transmitters you require and use a variable gain low noise amplifier. You might have to extend your cable though.
For an external outdoor aerial you will require a Group A aerial for the Divis Transmitter.

Even small outdoor aerials if you have a balcony/railings would produce much better results although you may require at least a Triax Unix 52 at the very least in your area to greceive the Freeview channels from outside Belfast. A variable gain masthead amplifier would make the most of the available signal and the higher up the antenna is the better.

Peter Rhea

FREETV wrote: »

Even small outdoor aerials if you have a balcony/railings would produce much better results although you may require at least a Triax Unix 52 at the very least in your area to greceive the Freeview channels from outside Belfast. A variable gain masthead amplifier would make the most of the available signal and the higher up the antenna is the better.

There is an 'aerial wire' mentioned in the OP here, so the apartment would seem to already be served by some kind of aerial, possibly providing Freeview, albeit only in the front room.

The query in the OP was in relation to getting some kind of programme feed to the bedroom. Seems a cable from the front room is undesirable.

James__10

Peter Rhea wrote: »

There is an 'aerial wire' mentioned in the OP here, so the apartment would seem to already be served by some kind of aerial, possibly providing Freeview, albeit only in the front room.

The query in the OP was in relation to getting some kind of programme feed to the bedroom. Seems a cable from the front room is undesirable.

Could you put up a link to the wireless sender I should get then?

Cheers!

FREETV

James__10 wrote: »

Could you put up a link to the wireless sender I should get then?

Cheers!

Something like these or maybe better.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Qose-5-8Ghz-Wireless-Sender-receiver/dp/B003CYYR4Q

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5-8ghz-wireless-video-Sender-interference-free-V-Sky-HD-Pre-assembled-for-you-/181163721492?pt=UK_Consu

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5-8G-Wireless-Audio-Video-Sender-Transmitter-Receiver-5-8Ghz-TV-STB-AV-Extender-/271226911108?pt=UK_ConsumerElectronics_WirelessVideoTransmitters_CA&hash=item3f26623984

Ronnie Raygun

Might be handy to get one somewhere local that would take it back no-questions-asked if it doesn't do the job.

Don't think Argos or Lidl have them atm though.

James__10

Ronnie Raygun wrote: »

Might be handy to get one somewhere local that would take it back no-questions-asked if it doesn't do the job.

Don't think Argos or Lidl have them atm though.

Yeah ill pop into the local tv accessorie shop tomorrow!

Are these things easy to set up?