Truskmore down on power ?

Smfm

Does anyone know if Truskmore Sligo is down on power, before Christmas I sorted out two people in problem reception area and now the signal is down on two houses a 100 yrds from each-other. Hardly a coincidence, we now as you may know have a new Mux, 53 & 57, if this is the final tweak so much for progress

The Cush

Contact RTÉNL 01 208 2259 or email rtenl@rte.ie, they will be able to tell you if there is an issue with the transmitter.

Could the aerials have moved in the windy conditions since Christmas?
What signal strength/quality reading were/are you getting?

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

Does anyone know if Truskmore Sligo is down on power, before Christmas I sorted out two people in problem reception area and now the signal is down on two houses a 100 yrds from each-other.

You are measuring the signal with professional equipment? How much is it 'down'? (Level, quality etc.)

Smfm

Yes, i'm installing for 20+ years, it's an Horizon DTM ...... the signal strength is moderate, the quality is very poor, no the aerials haven't moved. Both houses were working on an economy 10 aerials which was ok for a satisfactory picture alone with a Pro-power unit and a supreme C/D amp. Tried an XG 10 C/D Aerial up, no difference in gain........so I expect the new work that has been done has something to do with it. Ok this is spill-over i'm talking about, in the same area some houses have to be set for Carlingford & some Sligo, Longford is a no-no. Thanks for replying, will contact RNLI........

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

Both houses were working on an economy 10 aerials which was ok for a satisfactory picture alone with a Pro-power unit and a supreme C/D amp. Tried an XG 10 C/D Aerial up, no difference in gain........so I expect the new work that has been done has something to do with it. Ok this is spill-over i'm talking about, in the same area some houses have to be set for Carlingford & some Sligo, Longford is a no-no.

You mean the XG10 didn't improve on what the 'economy' aerials were providing when you originally installed them?

What signal level & BER figures were you getting with the original installation?

Smfm

Peter Rhea wrote: »

You mean the XG10 didn't improve on what the 'economy' aerials were providing when you originally installed them?

What signal level & BER figures were you getting with the original installation?

Yes the XG 10 cd made no difference, Ber was varying from 9 to zero, like a yo-yo, 57 mux was a little stronger than 53, well we have the not so small problem of a mountain, but it worked fine before the tweaking from RTE. So it's either going to get better or it isn't. Also I put on a Supreme C/D Amp, which is powered by the same pro-power unit, no go. Other people in the area who had a stronger signal before the transmitter work now have border line signal,
so it's definitely transmitter changes which is causing it...... I know the BER showing all "0000" is to be desired, there is a star rating as well, if I get 1 star I'd be lucky, 2 stars is border line but will work, 4 is the max.

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

it worked fine before the tweaking from RTE. So it's either going to get better or it isn't. Also I put on a Supreme C/D Amp, which is powered by the same pro-power unit, no go. Other people in the area who had a stronger signal before the transmitter work now have border line signal,
so it's definitely transmitter changes which is causing it......

What 'tweaking'? They switched on a 2nd multiplex, which they had been 'testing' on & off for ages.

Now, I certainly can't say for sure that the coverage in marginal areas mightn't have changed, for some reason but, what good did you think amplifying a poor quality signal would do? And why would you install 'economy' aerials in a problem reception area, as you referred to it?

Hedge11

Smfm wrote: »

will contact RNLI........

:eek: Must be some floods in your part of the country??!!

Smfm

Peter Rhea wrote: »

What 'tweaking'? They switched on a 2nd multiplex, which they had been 'testing' on & off for ages.

Now, I certainly can't say for sure that the coverage in marginal areas mightn't have changed, for some reason but, what good did you think amplifying a poor quality signal would do? And why would you install 'economy' aerials in a problem reception area, as you referred to it?

Well something happened since they switched it on, I've been doing this job for 20 + years. I installed economy aerials because they were good enough with an added amp. Coverage in this marginal area definitely has changed, I did as I said try an XG 10 c/d aerial with a supreme amp. You say what good in amplifying a poor quality signal ? originally it wasn't bad just before Christmas. The stronger reception areas have dropped in signal level as well, this is hardly a coincidence. The signal yo-yo's, this is a mountainous area I'm talking about. One installer gave up just before Christmas, he was fighting trying to get a signal from Sligo, so I swung the aerial around vertical to Carlingford, it's the best theyr'e going to get, it works, and my motto is if it isn't broke don't fix it. Sligo in this marginal area currently isn't working. As we know the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength, the old VHF with a much longer wavelength got into the valleys better, these UHF 53, & 57 have shorter wavelengths, and DO NOT get into valleys as good, thanks for your replies.

Smfm

Hedge11 wrote: »

:eek: Must be some floods in your part of the country??!!

Yes, it's the atmospherics, sun spots, in sunny Ireland, :eek:

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

I've been doing this job for 20 + years. I installed economy aerials because they were good enough with an added amp.

Yeah, good enough until they're not good enough. And of course it's always someone else's fault.

Gerry Wicklow

Hedge11 wrote: »

:eek: Must be some floods in your part of the country??!!

He says the signal is coming and going in waves

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

I know the BER showing all "0000" is to be desired, there is a star rating as well, if I get 1 star I'd be lucky, 2 stars is border line but will work, 4 is the max.

According to the manual for the HDTM, the numerical & star readings are given for post-Viterbi BER i.e. after error correction.

The manual recommends a minimum 3-star rating or <2E-6. That's fewer than 2 errors in every million bits. I think I've seen other sources recommend the E-8 range for post-Viterbi BER.

So it would appear you are wasting your time setting people up on 1 or 2 star ratings.

The Cush

Smfm wrote: »

I know the BER showing all "0000" is to be desired, there is a star rating as well, if I get 1 star I'd be lucky, 2 stars is border line but will work, 4 is the max.

This graph indicates a post-BER higher than E-07 is in the failure zone, a reading of 0 or 0.0E-08 would be ideal.

Smfm

Gerry Wicklow wrote: »

He says the signal is coming and going in waves

Nope, did not, yo yo to be precise !

Smfm

Peter Rhea wrote: »

Yeah, good enough until they're not good enough. And of course it's always someone else's fault.

Well i did say I tried the XG10 so if you don't know what's wrong and since you wernt on the roofe then fine, but don't try and be clever. The aerials were working fine with amplification, since some bright spark on Sligo mountain (excuse for an engineer) decided to give us all HD then it's not doing what it says on the tin. If you don't know whats wrong say you don't know, stop trying to impress others here with your University degree, which counts for noting in my book in the pouring pissing rain...........I don't give a flying **** if i'm deleted from this, I came here to ask a question, then get this tirade of a response from some that doesn't know their ass from their elbow, apart from they know a Donkey is one.........My ****ing manual which is in my house says 2** stars is acceptable, yours says 3 ***now **** off !

Hedge11

Did you even get the RNLI joke?

Smfm

Peter Rhea wrote: »

According to the manual for the HDTM, the numerical & star readings are given for post-Viterbi BER i.e. after error correction.

The manual recommends a minimum 3-star rating or <2E-6. That's fewer than 2 errors in every million bits. I think I've seen other sources recommend the E-8 range for post-Viterbi BER.

So it would appear you are wasting your time setting people up on 1 or 2 star ratings.

I'm wasting my time talking to a jack-ass like you u mean ?

Smfm

Hedge11 wrote: »

Did you even get the RNLI joke?

YOU **** OFF TOO, go back to your ****ing LEGO !

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

since some bright spark on Sligo mountain (excuse for an engineer) decided to give us all HD then it's not doing what it says on the tin. If you don't know whats wrong say you don't know, stop trying to impress others here with your University degree, which counts for noting in my book in the pouring pissing rain....

.....I came here to ask a question, then get this tirade of a response from some that doesn't know their ass from their elbow, apart from they know a Donkey is one.........My ****ing manual which is in my house says 2** stars is acceptable, yours says 3 ***now **** off !

I don't have a university degree. Don't need one to understand simplified concepts of DVB-T transmission & reception.

Did you ever get around to phoning the 'excuses for engineers' (not the lifeboat men) & see what they had to say?

Peter Rhea

Smfm wrote: »

if you don't know what's wrong and since you wernt on the roofe then fine, but don't try and be clever. The aerials were working fine with amplification, since some bright spark on Sligo mountain (excuse for an engineer) decided to give us all HD then it's not doing what it says on the tin. If you don't know whats wrong say you don't know

These aerials were installed just before Christmas? Hardly 'working fine' long term.

What's wrong is that you left these installations with no margin whatsoever for the normal small variations in signal that can be caused by environmental conditions.

Ronnie Raygun

Smfm wrote: »

Both houses were working on an economy 10 aerials which was ok for a satisfactory picture alone with a Pro-power unit and a supreme C/D amp. Tried an XG 10 C/D Aerial up, no difference in gain........so I expect the new work that has been done has something to do with it. Ok this is spill-over i'm talking about, in the same area some houses have to be set for Carlingford & some Sligo, Longford is a no-no.

A satisfactory picture? Digital is kind of "all or nothing", with not much in the way of picture degradation before complete failure. Good picture quality does not necessarily equal good signal quality. (Error correction was mentioned already in this thread.)

Maybe these houses are in an area where reliable Saorview reception just isn't possible, no matter what you throw at it & you'd be better off going with Saorsat.

Ronnie Raygun

Smfm wrote: »

Well something happened since they switched it on, I've been doing this job for 20 + years. I installed economy aerials because they were good enough with an added amp. Coverage in this marginal area definitely has changed, I did as I said try an XG 10 c/d aerial with a supreme amp.

A decent low-noise amplifier can enable a system to work with lower signal to noise at the aerial, although effectively, I think it is mainly compensating for signal loss in cables.

There's an equation in a BBC engineering paper somewhere, but given some of your previous replies here, I'd doubt you'd be interested ...

icdg

SMFM will be getting a weeks ban as soon as I get to a PC to do so

byte

*twitch*

This thread had potential to be relatively interesting and indeed some of it was. It'd have been good to see if a fix would've been found, but alas.

I dunno if the crap weather might've had an effect, or not.

I see no mention of Tx work at Truskmore, though that's not to say power might be down a small tad, but not enough to report it.

Ronnie Raygun

Dunno about a fix being found in this case. Maybe he'll get over himself & accept that he might need to brush up a bit on the old knowledge.

I wonder sometimes if there shouldn't be a "It's RTE's fault" ego-massaging thread, where deluded DIY-ers & less than competent professionals alike can go & post away to their hearts' content without having to face any inconvenient truths, such as the fundamental nature of digital signals employing heavy error-correction: what "works fine" today, might not work at all tomorrow & only due to the kind of small fluctuations that would barely have been noticed on analogue, particularly since in these cases, the analogue picture would have been a bit ropey to start with.

Galway

icdg wrote: »

SMFM will be getting a weeks ban as soon as I get to a PC to do so

Agreed but Peter Rhea has a habit of hacking people off.

Ronnie Raygun

@Galway, maybe some of your comments on "contract piece of crap" would have been more appropriate to this thread, since they seem to be Smfm's weapon of choice here.

Galway

Ronnie Raygun wrote: »

@Galway, maybe some of your comments on "contract piece of crap" would have been more appropriate to this thread, since they seem to be Smfm's weapon of choice here.

I see he has an ally.

Ronnie Raygun

Galway wrote: »

I see he has an ally.

Not really. I just remember following & posting in that other thread at the time & some of your remarks about "contract" aerials & the installers that fit them, including comments about inappropriate use of amplifiers.

Now, here you have a prime example of this & how it can all go wrong, & you say nothing? Are you afraid to take on an actual experienced installer on the subject? Maybe he'll tell you to f*ck off, as he's already done in to others in this thread?

Peter Rhea

Galway wrote: »

I see he has an ally.

He has a point. Maybe some of your comments on 'contract' (or 'economy' or whatever) aerials have touched a nerve there?

Peter Rhea

Galway wrote: »

Peter Rhea has a habit of hacking people off.

I'm not an idiot. I was fully expecting a tongue-lashing from the OP for basically trying to tell him how to do his job. (Didn't think he'd just go off the deep end like that.)

I understand how those actually in the business would feel under pressure to make things work. Blaming RTE won't get them anywhere though.

Galway

Ronnie Raygun wrote: »

Are you afraid to take on an actual experienced installer on the subject? Maybe he'll tell you to f*ck off, as he's already done in to others in this thread?

This forum should not be a place to 'take people on'. His behaviour was OTT. However, the veiled sarcasm from some 'know alls' to simple questions can become irritating.

Galway

Peter Rhea wrote: »

He has a point. Maybe some of your comments on 'contract' (or 'economy' or whatever) aerials have touched a nerve there?

People are awful touchy. As are those who appear to have no patience with straightforward questions.

Peter Rhea

There's a straightforward answer (not from me) in post #2, re. contacting 2rn.

I wonder did the OP bother or, if he did, did he believe the reply he got? (From 'an excuse for an engineer', as he put it himself.) It would be a terrible thing to burst his little bubble of indignation.

Galway

Peter Rhea wrote: »

There's a straightforward answer (not from me) in post #2, re. contacting 2rn.

I wonder did the OP bother or, if he did, did he believe the reply he got? It would be a terrible thing to burst his little bubble of indignation.

Why do people have to resort continually to scoring points? Must be an ego thing.

Peter Rhea

So, it should be OK for anyone to come on here & assert that all failures of Saorview reception are down to the network operator messing with coverage patterns?

Smfm isn't the 1st. Always annoys these people when you see through to the pomposity right from the off.

Galway

Peter Rhea wrote: »

So, it should be OK for anyone to come on here & assert that all failures of Saorview reception are down to the network operator messing with coverage patterns?

Smfm isn't the 1st. Always annoys these people when you see through to the pomposity right from the off.

I'm sure 2RN are well able to defend themselves. They can sometimes be at a fault and are not infallible. Best to keep things factual, rather than personal.

Peter Rhea

Galway wrote: »

Best to keep things factual, rather than personal.

Well, I won't antagonise him any further, in case he does decide to report back. (Not that he gives a crap what I think.)

Galway

Peter Rhea wrote: »

Well, I won't antagonise him any further, in case he does decide to report back. (Not that he gives a crap what I think.)

No it was bit mental alright though.

Ronnie Raygun

Galway wrote: »

I'm sure 2RN are well able to defend themselves.

Haven't seen much sign of them defending themselves on here. And that "Mux 2 launched" thread is full of this nonsense, people even citing the "official" launch of RTE1 HD as the cause of their reception woes.

They just don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of the "digital cliff", the fairly fine line between "perfect picture" & "no picture".

icdg

Galway, your backside moderation will earn you a ban too if I see it again. There is NO questioning moderator decisions on thread. Or personally attacking other posters.

Since there hasn't been an actual reply on thread for about a page and a half, I think its best to closed