Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
21612 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4429

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1226024 31-Jan-2015 19:28
Send private message

Phased array has less directionality so is better for getting signals that are scattered or skipping over things, but in the analog days would give a bad picture from all the multipathing since analog was crap in multipath situations. Digital can actually be helped by it so the phased arrays are better for digital.




Richard rich.ms



455 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1226187 1-Feb-2015 14:45
Send private message

Well oi just climbed up on the roof, pulled the aerial down, waterblasted the crap off it, then chopped the ends of the cable and redid them, replaced internal nots with non rusty ones, realigned it, and now my signal seems to be perfect
signal quality right now is 98%,
strength is 71%

I will see what its like tonight, but it is looking good, 

The things is the cables looked fine in the amp and splitter but it wasn't until I got the aerial down that I noticed  a bit of corrosion on the contacts

Anyway hopefully its all good

Thanks




'We love to buy books because we believe we’re buying the time to read them.' WARREN ZEVON


 
 
 
 


1933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 130


  Reply # 1226190 1-Feb-2015 14:49
Send private message

Morgenmuffel: Well oi just climbed up on the roof, pulled the aerial down, waterblasted the crap off it, then chopped the ends of the cable and redid them, replaced internal nots with non rusty ones, realigned it, and now my signal seems to be perfect
signal quality right now is 98%,
strength is 71%

I will see what its like tonight, but it is looking good, 

The things is the cables looked fine in the amp and splitter but it wasn't until I got the aerial down that I noticed  a bit of corrosion on the contacts

Anyway hopefully its all good

Thanks

Well done. Just shows it doesn't take much corrosion etc to turn the signal to crap. Getting the quality up to 98% is great.

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 95


  Reply # 1227551 2-Feb-2015 11:35
Send private message

B1GGLZ:
Morgenmuffel: Ok so what are the pros, cons of the two below aerials as these seem to be the most common place in my neighbourhood

http://www.freeviewshop.co.nz/element-aerial-freeview-p-694.html

vs

http://www.freeviewshop.co.nz/large-phased-array-aerial-freeview-p-595.html

and yes I have done the feature comparison, but it doesn't mean anything to me, I am leaning more to the large phased array as that seems to be the most common for the new aerials going up around me, although the long one (first link) are the majority of the aerials in this area, but i'd say they have probably been here since well before freeview days.

Cheers

Basically the 91 element has a very narrow capture area with high gain so is OK when a a distance from the Tx with few obstacles in the way. In theory.
The other one is a wide capture area with high gain suitable when lots of obstacles in the way. In theory.
Unfortunately though you'll never know which is best  til you try them both in your location for comparison. IMO the phased array is probably your better choice.
If the ones around you are 47 or 91 elements and have been there for years they're probably old Sky UHF antennae.


Hmm I am wondering about whether it might be worthwhile getting one of these for our issues as we are in a really marginal signal area with no line of sight...I just assumed the normal one that I see on most rooftops (ie the first link above) was the best one because that is what the dude put up...hmm I wonder if he did try other sorts though....or just did a quick get in get out install :\

21612 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4429

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1227554 2-Feb-2015 11:36
Send private message

If it was installed when analog was a thing, then it will have been chosen for minimal ghosting on analog, not digital performance.




Richard rich.ms

589 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 95


  Reply # 1227558 2-Feb-2015 11:41
Send private message

hmmm I can't recall (fk my memory is bad) when TV digital only....but it was about 4 years back... Shrug....possibly on the verge...

Here is a question - If we are in a fringe area, marginal signal with no line of site, why would you use one of the top ones (the arrow looking ones) versus the others? 

21612 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4429

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1227560 2-Feb-2015 11:44
Send private message

They would both need to be tried on a meter that can give the error rate, which some "installers" are still doing without.




Richard rich.ms

1138 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 189


  Reply # 1229020 2-Feb-2015 21:28
Send private message

Those 91 element antennas are usually wideband to cover channel 21 to 69. Most digital muxes now are down at the lower end of the band. You don't need such a wideband antenna,  Don't be fooled into thinking the bigger antenna is always the better one as some perform badly at the low end of the band.





 


1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.