Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="moonbase" data-source="post: 1138619" data-attributes="member: 178786">[USER=417732]@Criptex[/USER]&nbsp;&nbsp; Thank you for the explanation, I was not aware of the signal path.Are you sure about the 30 second delay applied to these Globecast frequencies?I tested 4 different sources of pictures, the list I prepared from testing is pasted below1. A Sports on 38.0E (fastest)2. M4 on 0.8W (about 0.6 secs slower than A Sports)3. Globecast from 3.1E on 3727R (about 3.0 secs slower that A Sports)4. BBC on 28.2E (about 6.7 secs slower than A Sports)The slowest set of pictures was BBC UK at 6.7 seconds slower than A Sports from 38.0E.Normally, if I test a BBC UK picture against a feed it is somewhere around 7 to 8 seconds slower than a feed, +/- any variation on the day.If the Globecast frequencies from 3.1E were 30 seconds delayed I would have expected them to be at the bottom of my list with a large gap between them and the 3rd placed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="moonbase, post: 1138619, member: 178786"] [USER=417732]@Criptex[/USER] Thank you for the explanation, I was not aware of the signal path. Are you sure about the 30 second delay applied to these Globecast frequencies? I tested 4 different sources of pictures, the list I prepared from testing is pasted below 1. A Sports on 38.0E (fastest) 2. M4 on 0.8W (about 0.6 secs slower than A Sports) 3. Globecast from 3.1E on 3727R (about 3.0 secs slower that A Sports) 4. BBC on 28.2E (about 6.7 secs slower than A Sports) The slowest set of pictures was BBC UK at 6.7 seconds slower than A Sports from 38.0E. Normally, if I test a BBC UK picture against a feed it is somewhere around 7 to 8 seconds slower than a feed, +/- any variation on the day. If the Globecast frequencies from 3.1E were 30 seconds delayed I would have expected them to be at the bottom of my list with a large gap between them and the 3rd placed. [/QUOTE]

Verification