My Humax Forum » Freeview HD » HDR 1800T, 2000T

poor receiver performance

(15 posts)
  1. User has not uploaded an avatar

    moo

    junior member
    Joined: Jan '14
    Posts: 6

    offline

    I currently have both a 2000t and a Fox-T2 in my house and so can directly compare the two. My Fox-T2 shows an average signal strength of 50% on all MUXs whereas the 2000t shows an average of 33% and I've had a couple of signal breakups. Humax are clearly using less sensitive tuners, probably to save money.

    | Mon 13 Jan 2014 17:36:12 #11 |
  2. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Owen Smith

    special member
    Joined: Aug '11
    Posts: 184

    offline

    moo - 3 hours ago  » 
    I currently have both a 2000t and a Fox-T2 in my house and so can directly compare the two. My Fox-T2 shows an average signal strength of 50% on all MUXs whereas the 2000t shows an average of 33% and I've had a couple of signal breakups. Humax are clearly using less sensitive tuners, probably to save money.

    I think you're placing too much trust in the 50% and 33% actually meaning something absolute. It could mean that when the Fox-T2 says 100% the 2000T is simply at 66% with the same signal strength, but they rescaled it so that higher signal levels can be discerned.

    You can only compare percentages on identical hardware with identical software.

    | Mon 13 Jan 2014 21:09:46 #12 |
  3. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Luke

    special member
    Joined: Apr '11
    Posts: 1,475

    offline

    moo - 5 hours ago  » 
    Humax are clearly using less sensitive tuners

    I agree.
    But not because of the metre readings for the reason that Owen gave.

    http://myhumax.org/forum/topic/hdr-2000t-poor-signal-strength/page/2#post-23224

    | Mon 13 Jan 2014 22:46:52 #13 |
  4. User has not uploaded an avatar

    moo

    junior member
    Joined: Jan '14
    Posts: 6

    offline

    Owen Smith - 1 hour ago  » 
    I think you're placing too much trust in the 50% and 33% actually meaning something absolute. It could mean that when the Fox-T2 says 100% the 2000T is simply at 66% with the same signal strength, but they rescaled it so that higher signal levels can be discerned.
    You can only compare percentages on identical hardware with identical software.

    Well I don't believe that, as the Fox-H2 has never had issues with signal breakup and has worked flawlessly. The 2000t works most of the time but 20% of the recordings always say loss of signal and I've seen it break up on live TV a few times too.

    There were also reports of the very latest Fox-T2 models having a different less sensitive tuner than the older models so it would make sense that the two share hardware.

    | Mon 13 Jan 2014 23:06:28 #14 |
  5. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Owen Smith

    special member
    Joined: Aug '11
    Posts: 184

    offline

    I'm happy to accept hard evidence that the new tuners are less sensitive as given in the quoted post by someone else. But the signal strength meters mean nothing, it's an arbitrary nunber not comparable on different models.

    | Mon 13 Jan 2014 23:12:18 #15 |

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.