[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
James Fidell wrote: > It's not actually our closest > transmitter, but carries a larger selection of channels and broadcasts > at higher power That will do it. Higher signal power will always get a better signal obviously. > We do however have a new aerial, new cabling, and an amplifier as near > to the masthead as possible. There you go then. One thing is that you can't *usually* get good reception from a passive TV aerial (when referring to a set-top one anyway). My Dad has a (fairly old) powered aerial and the signal is crisp and clear. The only time it wasn't was when I forgot to turn the aerial on, which proves the point. YMMV with roof aerials which I know nothing about, but again I see them advertised as being 'suitable for digital signals'. Is this just clever marketing[1], or is there actually a difference? Admittedly we are line-of-sight to a 500,000W mast in St Hilary (S Wales) and I can get a clean signal on a normal portable TV with the aerial unplugged. It seems the signal is so strong the socket picks it up :) However having said that digital still suffers if not on a powered (internal) aerial. Kind regards, Julian [1] For a given value of 'clever' which isn't always. Examples: 'Internet Capable' modems <?> and batteries being sold claiming 'Our batteries have Memory Effect!!' - as if this is a GOOD thing?? -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html