Stuttering Pictures « My Humax Forum

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

Stuttering Pictures

(15 posts)

fedman1

special member
Joined: Dec '13
Posts: 146
offline

Minstrel SE - 12 hours ago »
Yes it was interesting when I hooked up another box the signal strength was on a different scale. One box read 38% to 58% and the Humax was reading in the 78% area.

Nothing unusual here the signal strength shown as a percentage is not an absolute mesurement, unlike dBW or microvolts at the antenna input.
Each manufacturer will have its own idea of what is 100%, based on their tuner 'front end' circuitry. If I measure signal strength on my Freeview devices i.e.Sony, Sharpe, and Humax, I get different results for each. As has been stated before Humax appear to prefer an indicated signal strength between 60 - 80%.
Signal quality measurement is another question altogether.

| Wed 23 Nov 2016 14:08:02 #11 |
Minstrel SE

special member
Joined: Sep '16
Posts: 219
offline

Yes signal quality seems to be 100% on everything but it would be nice to see some consistency between boxes on the strength,

You see I have an amplified aerial system for 40 flats which must be like spaghetti junction in a large 3 storey building. Im not keen on amplification in line unless I have full control of whats going on. I wouldnt necessarily need amplification with my own aerial in my own home. I like to be in control of attenuation and other factors

So it would have been nice to see a consistent reading between boxes because at the lower end 38% seems very low. The picture seemed fine though which is confusing because I have been brought up to believe that lower strength readings on FM and other equipment just arent acceptable.

It just seems strange to me that if they have a scale of 1 to 100 thats quite some leeway for the picture to be ok at 38% to 58% on a Huawei I tested. Fair enough the Humax is reading up to 80% I would presume the ideal was 100 on both readings.

I also wonder if the sheer amount of channels per band is just no good as I would have thought some compression and cutting corners is going on.

Im mainly a BBC watcher though and its bliss deleting many other channels and having a small favourites list

| Thu 24 Nov 2016 13:18:36 #12 |
grahamlthompson

special member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 14,442
offline

Minstrel SE - 8 minutes ago »
Yes signal quality seems to be 100% on everything but it would be nice to see some consistency between boxes on the strength,
You see I have an amplified aerial system for 40 flats which must be like spaghetti junction in a large 3 storey building. Im not keen on amplification in line unless I have full control of whats going on. I wouldnt necessarily need amplification with my own aerial in my own home
So it would have been nice to see a consistent reading between boxes because at the lower end 38% seems very low. The picture seemed fine though which is confusing because I have been brought up to believe that lower strength readings on FM and other equipment just arent acceptable.
It just seems strange to me that if they have a scale of 1 to 100 thats quite some leeway for the picture to be ok at 38% to 58% on a Huawei I tested. Fair enough the Humax is reading up to 80% I would assume the ideal was 100 on both readings with attenuation not being a factor
I also wonder if the sheer amount of channels is just no good as I would have thought some compression and cutting corners is going on.
Im mainly a BBC watcher though and its bliss deleting many other channels and having a small favourites list

FM is analogue and like analogue TV signal strength affects quality.

Digital is completely different in that if the inbuilt error correction can cope the picture quality is identical. 100% quality indicates the received signal is not using any of the in built error correction to produce a bit accurate output stream.

http://aerialsandtv.com/digitaltv.html#InferiorDigitalPictureQuality

If the signal is too strong for the tuner the indicated power level can actually fall as a result of the UHF carrier being clipped at the peaks of the sine wave.

| Thu 24 Nov 2016 13:31:41 #13 |
Minstrel SE

special member
Joined: Sep '16
Posts: 219
offline

Thanks and that is a very good article. I agree with the tone of the article that digital tv transmission is far from perfect.

I was fairly happy with my CRT TV but games consoles showed its limitations in resolution and it was bowing menu graphics lines etc. However it certainly had some clear advantages on TV broadcasts in terms of frame rate and motion. On standard TV definition they were set up for interlaced CRT and it was quite a shock when I first saw standard definition on an LCD flatscreen

I accept that crt is power hungry, no longer manufactured and I have to move with the times

With HD channels and xbox playing I do enjoy a flatscreen tv and I accept I have a cheaper low end model.

I do agree with that article that they go remarkably quiet when asked about the fine detail of digital transmission specs.

So all in all I am now happy with the picture on the Humax and am going to resolve the noisy hard drive issue. I am the sort of person that needs a couple of months to settle in with a product especially with an issue that may be subjective. I now feel ready to present my case and see what they will offer to ensure Im getting a quieter one

| Sat 26 Nov 2016 1:38:09 #14 |
Billy641

new member
Joined: Dec '16
Posts: 1
offline

I have the same problems, it started when we got G4 signal in the area, we were told the we could have problems with the signal and if so 'free filters' would be fitted, which I had done.
As with other posters in this forum, watch through Humax and freezes, bypass humax and all is well.

I wonder if any other recorder manufacturer has the same problem with G4

| Wed 21 Dec 2016 19:25:26 #15 |