>>By the way, I learned a little bit of trivia last night, > Apparantly the fan-fare that goes with the YTV logo > is based on "On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at"
> We realised that the first time we heard it!
> Bill >SWMBO and I were wondering if her late father, a Yorkshire man >in exile, realised it. I suppose we will never know.
Hold a seance. "We have this very important question for you . . ."
Mark Carver wrote: > Of course Mux B at pre DSO locations is totally unaffected, and remains > in use for BBC4, CBeebies, Parliament, 301, and BBC radio.
How crap do the BBC channels look where they're all squashed on PSB1?
The message <31303030373730364AF4545...@plugzetnet.co.uk> from Johnny B Good <jcs.computersb...@plugzetnet.co.uk> contains these words:
=======snip========
> As soon as I've laid hands on another one of those 3 way splitters and > swapped the amp out, I'll confirm the make and model of the attic 4 way > amp and report back.
Well, I swapped that 4 way amp out (actually turned out to be exactly what I'd surmised it to be, except for the gain, 18 db overall, 12 db per port).
Unfortunately, I'd forgotten that I'd already used another of those three way splitters in the basement to split the living room feed to supply the back kitchen TV and a cheap STB which meant they both suffered a drop of 18db on top of the existing 6db from the splitter and this proved too much for the toppy to cope with.
I've had to revert back to the amp and the 10db pad combination to restore 'normal service'. Unfortunately, the Toppy simply refuses to place BBC1 and 2 at their correct LCNs (I made the mistake of retuning whilst the amp was out of circuit). Even after a factory reset and auto tune whether the antenna is pulled after the top channel from the Storeton Tx has been processed or not, I still can't resolve this issue.
I tried manually selecting each individual mux and 'tuning' them one by one (factory reset or not) and this, too, failed to resolve the issue. I even managed to (eventually) spot that the modulator output was defaulted to CH36 and placed it on CH69 (too close to CH35 for comfort) but this helped not one bit.
I finally gave up in disgust after wasting an hour or so of my life. Whether the cheap Pacific box in the back kitchen would have coped better is an unknown since I never retuned it whilst the amp had been substituted by the three way splitter so still works ok (it seems a little bit more sluggish over channel changing though, perhaps a side effect of handling 8k packets or the split NIT?).
So there it is. My experiment produced results, but not not the ones I'd hoped for and, what's worse, a seemingly irreversable result as far as the Toppy is concerned. I've no doubt I'll eventually resolve this mystery but, for now, I'm giving it a rest in the hope that my braincells manage to regroup themselves for another assault on the problem (probably with a little help from this group ;)
-- Regards, John.
Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying. The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.
faderst...@live.co.uk wrote: > Mark Carver wrote: >> Of course Mux B at pre DSO locations is totally unaffected, and >> remains in use for BBC4, CBeebies, Parliament, 301, and BBC radio.
> How crap do the BBC channels look where they're all squashed on PSB1?
Dunno, not seen for myself any PSB 1 pictures for real yet.
Remember there's 6 Mb/s more pay load on PSB 1 than on Mux 1 owing to the use of 64QAM, so I'd imagine the net result is they look no worse (or better) than Mux 1.
-- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
In message <7lo72lF3e9pi...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> writes
>I assume that these transmitters will slowly have DVB-T2 rolled out to >them early in 2010, around the same time as the five temporary >transmissions on a 7th mux in pre DSO regions from CP, Lichfield, >Emley, Pontop, and Black H launch ?
Is it *really* Lichfield, as opposed to Sutton Coldfield? (Serious question, not being pedantic.) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK
Ian Jelf wrote: > In message <7lo72lF3e9pi...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver > <mark.car...@invalid.invalid> writes >> I assume that these transmitters will slowly have DVB-T2 rolled out to >> them early in 2010, around the same time as the five temporary >> transmissions on a 7th mux in pre DSO regions from CP, Lichfield, >> Emley, Pontop, and Black H launch ?
> Is it *really* Lichfield, as opposed to Sutton Coldfield? (Serious > question, not being pedantic.)
Yep, UHF Ch34 4kW ERP. I assume there's not mast space available at SC, and what with the temporary mast currently there to enable DSO work, it's less fuss to use Lichfield.
-- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
> faderst...@live.co.uk wrote: >> Mark Carver wrote: >>> Of course Mux B at pre DSO locations is totally unaffected, and remains in >>> use for BBC4, CBeebies, Parliament, 301, and BBC radio.
>> How crap do the BBC channels look where they're all squashed on PSB1?
> Dunno, not seen for myself any PSB 1 pictures for real yet.
> Remember there's 6 Mb/s more pay load on PSB 1 than on Mux 1 owing to the > use of 64QAM, so I'd imagine the net result is they look no worse (or > better) than Mux 1.
>>>SWMBO and I were wondering if her late father, a Yorkshire man >>>in exile, realised it. I suppose we will never know.
>> Hold a seance. "We have this very important question for you . . ."
>>You won't get an answer, because when someone's dead, they're dead.
> Blimey, I never knew that. Good job you're here Jamie, to teach us the > flaming obvious. >A lot of morons can't seem to grasp this simple fact for themselves. >You, for one, have previously stated that you believed in an afterlife.
Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? I'd be interested.
My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.
At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally obnoxious little prat in fact.
> Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have > been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? I'd > be interested.
Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:
"Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus invulnerable to physical attack) would develop."
...which comes pretty close.
> My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their > belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.
What's with the seance references then?
> At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally > obnoxious little prat in fact.
> Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have > been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? > I'd > be interested.
Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:
"Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus invulnerable to physical attack) would develop."
...which comes pretty close.
Surely you can see that I was playing with the idea? Saying 'it could be' hardly equates to firm faith or belief. You didn't really think I was turning into Doris Stokes did you?
> My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their > belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives. >What's with the seance references then?
Oh for goodness sake Jamie, don't you ever say anything for a laugh? When I was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty good way of getting the lasses into a dark room.
> At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally > obnoxious little prat in fact. >Glad I wasn't at school with you.
If we had it would be fortunate if we'd been close friends, because otherwise we would have spoilt another couple.
> > "Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's > > close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt > > predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus > > invulnerable > > to physical attack) would develop."
> > ...which comes pretty close.
> Surely you can see that I was playing with the idea?
You so weren't. You were being serious.
> Saying 'it could be' > hardly equates to firm faith or belief. You didn't really think I was > turning into Doris Stokes did you?
You didn't really think I thought that did you?
> >What's with the seance references then?
> Oh for goodness sake Jamie, don't you ever say anything for a laugh? When I > was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty > good way of getting the lasses into a dark room.
weirdo.
> >Glad I wasn't at school with you.
> If we had it would be fortunate if we'd been close friends, because > otherwise we would have spoilt another couple.
> > Since I haven't believed in an afterlife since I was about 8, it must have > > been a very old message you saw. Could you find it and quote it for me? I'd > > be interested.
> Well... on 18/08/09 you stated:
> "Evolution includes a mechanism for assisting the genes of an organism's > close relatives to succeed. So it could be that the ability to haunt > predators (with the advantage of being just a plasma, and thus invulnerable > to physical attack) would develop."
> ...which comes pretty close.
> > My view is that those who believe should be left alone, as long as their > > belief doesn't cause them to interfere with other people's lives.
> What's with the seance references then?
> > At your age though, I was a militant and agressive atheist -- a totally > > obnoxious little prat in fact.
> Glad I wasn't at school with you.
Ha ha ha ha haaa! Oh boy, I'm glad I wasn't at school with you. I reckon most people on here are also glad that *they* weren't! This group used to be a pleasant place for like-minded people, until you decided to come along and pissed in the whisky.
>When I > was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty > good way of getting the lasses into a dark room. >weirdo.
Jamie, trying to get girls into dark rooms when you're a teenager is not wierd.
> >Glad I wasn't at school with you.
> If we had it would be fortunate if we'd been close friends, because > otherwise we would have spoilt another couple. >huh?
OK. When you encounter a couple in a relationship and they are both horrid people, the saying is, 'They'd spoil another couple'. It means that if they hadn't found each other they would between them have made two other innocent people unhappy.
> >When I >> was a kid we often used to have 'seances'. It was hilarious, and a pretty >> good way of getting the lasses into a dark room.
>>weirdo.
> Jamie, trying to get girls into dark rooms when you're a teenager is not > wierd.
It'd get you arrested nowadays at any age. I can see that it would've be considered humourous in the context of certain historical eras, but it's still creepy behaviour, highly befitting of 'Beavis and Butthead' types (socially-isolated lamers who can't pull chicks).
> OK. When you encounter a couple in a relationship and they are both horrid > people, the saying is, 'They'd spoil another couple'. It means that if they > hadn't found each other they would between them have made two other innocent > people unhappy.
Speak for yourself. Scott's not unhappy with me :p
> Ha ha ha ha haaa! Oh boy, I'm glad I wasn't at school with you. I > reckon most people on here are also glad that *they* weren't! This > group used to be a pleasant place for like-minded people, until you > decided to come along and pissed in the whisky.
A very weak form of personal attack - you'll have to do way better than that if you're to offend me. Best stick to trainspotting instead I reckon.
> Jamie, trying to get girls into dark rooms when you're a teenager is not > wierd. >It'd get you arrested nowadays at any age.
Au contraire mon frère, my various teenage friends tell me that such behaviour is de rigeur in all classes of teenage society. Also that the birds very often make the running these days. . . . (Eee I've come over all linguistic, like. Better that than esurient though. Jamie you won't get the reference, but don't worry)
>I can see that it would've be considered humourous in the context of >certain
historical eras,
What's that love? You've lost me. Ohh, snogging in the dark? No, it's always gone on. Sit in the youth club telling the lasses that the local churchyard is haunted, and that at the stroke of midnight the air becomes chilled and then a moment later a ghost appears and dances on a tomb.Teenage lasses can't contain their curiousity often as not, so when you offer to take them to the churchyard at midnight they generally fall for it. Of course at midnight you give a theatrical shiver and she says "Ohh, it has gone cold hasn't it? You pull her towards you and enfold her in your duffle coat. "Would you like to feel my ectoplasm?" (Eee I've come over all Mills and Boone now! Whatever's wrong with me today?)
> OK. When you encounter a couple in a relationship and they are both horrid > people, the saying is, 'They'd spoil another couple'. It means that if > they > hadn't found each other they would between them have made two other > innocent > people unhappy. >Speak for yourself. Scott's not unhappy with me :p
Big sigh. I was jokingly saying we were both annoying little twats at school. Oh, never mind. It would be easier to train a monkey (another allusion you might not be familiar with).
> Au contraire mon frère, my various teenage friends tell me that such > behaviour is de rigeur in all classes of teenage society. Also that the > birds very often make the running these days. . . .
No self-respecting teenager would touch you with a barge pole, which says a lot about the ones that allegedly do. I think you're making things up again here though.
> (Eee I've come over all linguistic, like. Better that than esurient though. > Jamie you won't get the reference, but don't worry)
aw well, I'm sure it makes sense on "planet Bill Wright".
> What's that love? You've lost me. Ohh, snogging in the dark? No, it's always > gone on.
Ah yes, as usual you've moved the goalposts. Previously you were claiming to have touched them up in the dark while pretending it was a ghost, basically as an excuse to touch girls without being caught. Now you've changed it to the far less creepy behaviour of snogging (which would of course require mutual consent), after having realised how pervy you sounded the first time no doubt. :p
> Sit in the youth club telling the lasses that the local churchyard > is haunted, and that at the stroke of midnight the air becomes chilled and > then a moment later a ghost appears and dances on a tomb.Teenage lasses > can't contain their curiousity often as not, so when you offer to take them > to the churchyard at midnight they generally fall for it. Of course at > midnight you give a theatrical shiver and she says "Ohh, it has gone cold > hasn't it? You pull her towards you and enfold her in your duffle coat. > "Would you like to feel my ectoplasm?" > (Eee I've come over all Mills and Boone now! Whatever's wrong with me > today?)
See above - you've changed your story and are now wasting bandwidth with pointless blather to try and gloss over your previous confessions.
>> OK. When you encounter a couple in a relationship and they are both horrid >> people, the saying is, 'They'd spoil another couple'. It means that if >> they >> hadn't found each other they would between them have made two other >> innocent >> people unhappy.
>>Speak for yourself. Scott's not unhappy with me :p
> Big sigh. I was jokingly saying we were both annoying little twats at > school. Oh, never mind. It would be easier to train a monkey (another > allusion you might not be familiar with).
Again, you didn't come across as if you were joking. If you genuinely were, then this is another instance of poor articulation on your part. Perhaps if you knew how to use emoticons to overcome the limitations of textual communication like everyone else does, it'd help you in situations like this. It's a shame that you instead resort to insulting others, to draw attention away from your own shortcomings in this area.
> Au contraire mon frère, my various teenage friends tell me that such > behaviour is de rigeur in all classes of teenage society. Also that the > birds very often make the running these days. . . . >No self-respecting teenager would touch you with a barge pole, which says a
lot about the ones that allegedly do. I think you're making things up again here though.
Jamie, are you thick or what? What are you on about here? Have you lost the plot?
> (Eee I've come over all linguistic, like. Better that than esurient > though. > Jamie you won't get the reference, but don't worry) >aw well, I'm sure it makes sense on "planet Bill Wright".
Certainly does.
> What's that love? You've lost me. Ohh, snogging in the dark? No, it's > always > gone on. >Ah yes, as usual you've moved the goalposts. Previously you were claiming >to
have touched them up in the dark while pretending it was a ghost, basically as an excuse to touch girls without being caught. Now you've changed it to the far less creepy behaviour of snogging (which would of course require mutual consent), after having realised how pervy you
sounded the first time no doubt. :p
Sorry Jamie, but you're sounding like the RAF types in Armstrong and Miller.
> Sit in the youth club telling the lasses that the local churchyard > is haunted, and that at the stroke of midnight the air becomes chilled and > then a moment later a ghost appears and dances on a tomb.Teenage lasses > can't contain their curiousity often as not, so when you offer to take > them > to the churchyard at midnight they generally fall for it. Of course at > midnight you give a theatrical shiver and she says "Ohh, it has gone cold > hasn't it? You pull her towards you and enfold her in your duffle coat. > "Would you like to feel my ectoplasm?" > (Eee I've come over all Mills and Boone now! Whatever's wrong with me > today?) >See above - you've changed your story and are now wasting bandwidth with
pointless blather to try and gloss over your previous confessions.
You're completely demented.
>> OK. When you encounter a couple in a relationship and they are both >> horrid >> people, the saying is, 'They'd spoil another couple'. It means that if >> they >> hadn't found each other they would between them have made two other >> innocent >> people unhappy.
>>Speak for yourself. Scott's not unhappy with me :p
> Big sigh. I was jokingly saying we were both annoying little twats at > school. Oh, never mind. It would be easier to train a monkey (another > allusion you might not be familiar with). >Again, you didn't come across as if you were joking. If you genuinely were,
then this is another instance of poor articulation on your part.
My articulation is affected by arthritis. The problem here though, is your comprehension.
>Perhaps if you knew how to use emoticons to overcome the limitations of
textual communication like everyone else does, it'd help you in situations like this.
*snip* because i'm bored now. (but i'm still right and you're still wrong).
btw, have you ever tested the Antiference TC10 UHF aerial? I have a group C/D one rigged up temporarily here (clamped to the balcony fence), and it seems to be rubbish.
> >btw, have you ever tested the Antiference TC10 UHF aerial? > > I have a group C/D one rigged up temporarily here (clamped to the balcony > > fence), and it seems to be rubbish.
> Used thousands of them, but don't use them now because the build quality has > become poor. They work well.
You've used the group C/D one? This one seems to favour UHF 39 -> 59 which is, of course, not its intended channel grouping. My big high-gain Maxview C/D aerial pwns it. I also never see the TC10 on people's houses, which says alot.
> >btw, have you ever tested the Antiference TC10 UHF aerial? > > I have a group C/D one rigged up temporarily here (clamped to the > > balcony > > fence), and it seems to be rubbish.
> Used thousands of them, but don't use them now because the build quality > has > become poor. They work well. >You've used the group C/D one?
Hundreds of them.
>This one seems to favour UHF 39 -> 59 which is, of course, not its intended
channel grouping.
Sure it's a CD? I've always found the TC10 and TC18CD has peaked at about ch65. Useless below ch 46.
>I also never see the TC10 on people's houses, which says alot.
It says a lot about Anti's crap marketing! The production people must be very frustrated. The trouble with this market is that consumer ignorance is rife, so installers buy shite aerials just because they look good.
|
