No I'm using Cox cable. I assume that the lines comes from  
overloading and the snow from a weak signal. I don't have any  
channels with both snow and lines. The lines goes away from  most  
channels when I put an attenuator on the cable, but the snowy  
channels gets worse. There was no lines when I had the LNA turned off.

The signal seem to change slightly over time, but I'm always  
referencing the tuner on my TV. I have not found a static solution  
that works, I have to change the attenuator to get a good signal on  
different channels.

Generally the lower frequencies (<100Mhz) are week, and the higher  
are strong (over channel 60). I don't  know how to measure my signal,  
but I'm guessing the signal from the cable provider is relatively  
strong.

- Haavar

On Dec 5, 2006, at 7:07 AM, Andrew Dodd wrote:

> Comment:  I haven't been following the PVR-500 issues as much as I
> should have.  Somehow my Samsung-based 500 started working perfectly
> after a few weeks with no intervention (I'm still running the
> 0.5.something or 0.6.something - I'm not home at the moment to check.)
>   I honestly can't figure out why, but I've been afraid to touch  
> it.  :)
>
> I think I need to browse through the archives this weekend to see
> where things are normally, as it sounds like a lot more is known about
> the card now.
>
> Quoting Haavar Valeur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Do you mean there was no clear criteria when to turn on or off the
>> amp, or do you mean that it was not clear if turning it on or off
>> would improve the picture?
> Unfortunately, when you're dealing with receiver nonlinearity and
> frontend overloading, things are never cut and dry in the RF world.
> :(  Nonlinearity pays my bills (I'm an RF engineer by profession.)
>
>> What I think is that the lines people see is when the signal gets
>> clipped. That is when the signal strength is too high. This will
>> occur when the amp is on when it should not have been. I think the
>> picture is snowy when the signal is too weak. That is the case when
>> the amp is not on, but it should be on.
>>
>> When I had the amp on, some channels where clear, but others had the
>> lines. When I turned the amp off the most of the channels that was
>> clear now turned snowy, but the channels that had the lines where
>> generally a lot better.
>>
>> Looking at the picture over time I get the impression that the signal
>> for each channel changes. Channels sometimes has the lines and
>> sometimes not. The same with the channels that are prune to snow. I
>> don't think there is a static list of channels that should use the
>> amp and not, but there are some channels that are more likely to need
>> the amp (<130Mhz).
> Unfortunately, depending on the receiver design (Hans, does the
> datasheet happen to have a block diagram showing where in the signal
> path the LNA is located?), moving the LNA in/out of the signal path on
> a channel by channel basis will likely not help much.  Usually LNAs
> are placed as early in the signal chain as possible (It can be
> mathematically shown that the noise figure of the first amplifier in
> your receiver chain is the most important, thus LNAs are usually the
> first thing in the signal path, with a few exceptions.)
> Unfortunately, this also means the LNA does not have too much
> filtering in front of it, which will make it more prone to getting
> overloaded by a strong signal.  This strong signal can be anywhere in
> the receivers' frontend passband, which is usually pretty wide.  Thus
> a strong signal on one channel can foul up reception of every channel
> in a given band, as tuning of the channels and selectivity *usually*
> occurs after the LNA.
>
> I'd really need to know more about the signal chain to be sure though.
>
> Given that you are indicating significant differences in signal
> strength between channels, I'm guessing you are using OTA reception
> and not cable?  Signal strength that varies over time is to be
> expected with OTA reception, since both multipath and weather can
> affect VHF and UHF propagation significantly.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ivtv-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-users
>


_______________________________________________
ivtv-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-users

Reply via email to