Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FRINGE" data-source="post: 879330" data-attributes="member: 336363">Sorry for the wordy post but, as promised, here is an update on things since arriving back home (Tenerife) with a new BlackUltra LNB, Technomate F3/5 and Amstrad DRX890 500GB SKY HD receiver(s) - to see if I could improve my 2e reception.First check was with my existing Invacom Quad LNB and the 3 receivers.I used 10714H (Channel 4 - because I get poor reception and pixellation on this one) for the purposes of this check. It was Friday 14th March at 14:30 with a clear sky. The same coax feed line was used, in turn, on each box.The TM-F3/5 Gave a quality reading of between 61% and 62% (flicking between the two) and there was very, very minor occasional pixellation, easily watchable.  The Humax gave a quality reading of 50% (as normal for me with Channel 4) but was pixellating a little more than the TM-F3/5.  It was still watchable but annoying and the sound was OK.  The Amstrad provided a picture that was pixellating badly. I could make it out but it was not watchable and no sound.However, to explain a little more; the TM-F3/5 provides a signal 'quality' reading in  individual percentage (%) units, so I now have a better understanding of the signal received  (better than I could previously with my Humax which only provides a % signal 'quality' scale measured in units of 10). So, having used the TM-F3/5 for the past couple of days now, I would guestimate that the Humax provided a signal quality of about 59%/60% with the Amstrad at about 58%/59%.  Obviously my observations are simply that, observations, but it does represent a reasonably objective opinion of performance.So, the box that gave the best reception (marginally) was the new TM-F3/5.  The Humax came a close 2nd and the Amstrad was the poorest.By the way, 10729V gave the same result.Given that initial check, I decided to consign the Amstrad to the reject bin but the data clearly shows how 'on the edge' I am at my location. As they say, every bit counts.Next came the turn of the BlackUltra LNB and I must say the results were not as good as I had hoped for. The clear winner in this case was my existing Invacom Quad. I used 10891H for this check on the TM-F3/5.  The time was 15:15 and with a clear sky.  Using the BlackUltra, the best I could obtain was a signal alternating between 60% and 61% (and a pixellating picture).  Using the Invacom, the best signal that I could obtain was alternating between 63% and 64% (and a perfectly clear picture).  I did look at Verticals as well and had similar results. So, for me, the Invacom came out on top.One thing I noted with the BlackUltra, it had to be positioned so that the rear face of its feed horn was hard up against its retaining clamp in order to get the best signal- so maybe something to do with the focal length. Anyway, there was (obviously) nothing that I could do to move it back any further.So overall not really a lot of change but I am glad that I did what I did. The TM-F3/5 is a good box and it will get used (and I prefer its menu/set-up options to my Humax). It also shows that I need to maintain a signal quality of 61% or more in order to overcome any pixellation. I have since tried to tweak the dish a little but, to be honest, any change resulted in reduced signal quality so I guess it's about as good as it can get. My only thought now is with my Invacom LNB.  I have read that its performance can and will deteriorate over time.  Mine is about 3 years - coming on 4 years - old now. So maybe a change there would be for the better. But I am no rush.Will now keep a diary (one day per week) to monitor how things go through the year with 2E (and 2F) using my new TM-F3/5.By the way, I get the best (and watchable) signal from Channel 4 HD - so no real problem.Anyone want to buy an Amstrad DRX890 or BlackUltra LNB ;).</blockquote>

Verification