- This topic has 69 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Is the current lack of loop through Really such a problem? I haven’t used loop through on any of my boxes for years, each one has a separate aerial feed from an 8-way distribution box.
brian – 17 minutes ago »
Is the current lack of loop through Really such a problem? I haven’t used loop through on any of my boxes for years, each one has a separate aerial feed from an 8-way distribution box.
Seconded and you can save money as well. You have 1 amplifier that serves everything and likely uses the same amount of extra power every box you have that does not use low power sby. The amp uses approx 2-3W. If you have 8 boxes each of which uses say an extra 2W by having to disable low power sby.
That’s an extra 14W of sby power.
At say 16hrs a day, that equates to 16 * 365 * 14 Watt/hrs every year. (81760 Watt/Hrs or approx 82 units/annum. That’s costing around £16.00/year depending on your tariff (and it will get larger).
Well if we’re comparing amplifiers mine is a 12 way, but I still only have one feed to each room. So, yes, pass-thru is really important for me (and most users).
Pollensa1946 – 41 minutes ago »
Well if we’re comparing amplifiers mine is a 12 way, but I still only have one feed to each room. So, yes, pass-thru is really important for me (and most users).
If you can’t use a passive splitter at each location, your signal must be right on the edge of being acceptable. If you could watch the channels pre-dso then it’s certain you can post dso use a passive splitter.
Pass through adds a tiny amount of extra gain basically designed to recover the insertion loss of the box, but does boost the signal by a small amount over and above what is required. In most cases it’s not required and indeed if the signal is strong can cause tuner overload issues. I know of cases where multiple boxes are chained you have to actually add signal attenuation (Which is rather daft).
I have a single feed to my lounge, it’s fed from a log 40 in the loft 30mls from a relatively high powered relay (Lark Stoke). It has a 4 way masthead amp with one of the outputs fed to the lounge. Signal strength in the lounge is about 60% but 100% quality. It feeds two HDR FOx T2’s and my TV tuner (which I rarely use). None of the PVRs have low power standby enabled all of them are fed by a single passive splitter. Signal quality on all is 100% and reception is perfect.
I think the issue is analogue syndrome complex
, Digital quality is not affected by signal level only the ability to distinguish between zeros and 1’s. If it works it works 100%. Analogue is entirely different, as the signal strength declines so does the picture (gradually getting more and more grainy) Have you actually tried using a passive splitter arrangement ?
I recommend anyone to read this thread.
http://www.aerialsandtv.com/ampsandsplitters.html
The only time anyone should need loopthrough is when the box includes a rf modulator. No modern pvrs have this capability except Sky Boxes (and you have to add extra kit on the latest boxes).
Congratulations on the robust, and certainly interesting, defence of the deficiencies of the Humax 2000. Which leads to the question of why did Humax include pass-thru in the 1800. In any event, I’m not interested in buying additional add-ons necessary to provide a basic facility which is an expected part of the product. Two years of the 1000S has made me wary.
After reading the last few posts I’ve had to check todays date and yes it is still September 2014. For a moment I thought I had gone back to pre-VCR days.
It’s the 21st Century and we are talking about having to use splitters because a company renowned for their PVR’s have for some bizarre reason omitted loop through on one of their top products.
The aerial feeds in my property come from a six-way mast head. However, I too only have the one feed to each room so yes I too want loop through and have no intention of providing what Humax forgot to include – priceless.
Faust – 11 hours ago »
After reading the last few posts I’ve had to check todays date and yes it is still September 2014. For a moment I thought I had gone back to pre-VCR days.
It’s the 21st Century and we are talking about having to use splitters because a company renowned for their PVR’s have for some bizarre reason omitted loop through on one of their top products.
The aerial feeds in my property come from a six-way mast head. However, I too only have the one feed to each room so yes I too want loop through and have no intention of providing what Humax forgot to include – priceless.
Missing the point, it’s not good practice to use loopthrough unless you absolutely need it. No professional installer would rely on this. A properly designed set up will provide a separate feed to each item with the minimum number of signal amplifiers. Preferably without any amplification at all.
That’s why it’s mandatory to provide a ultra low power sby mode on all newer pvrs. If they are connected to a properly set up system there is no need to use loopthrough unless you wish to use a built in RF Modulator that you cannot access externally.
I don’t understand why there is such an issue with using passive splitters, unlike amplifiers they don’t add unwanted noise to the signal and of course they use zero power.
There’s a subtle but important difference in how satellite PVRs vs Freeview PVRs are typically used. Most TVs do not have a satellite tuner so the attached satellite PVR is typically going to be powered on all of the time that the TV is in use. Contrast that with all TVs having Freeview tuners and therefore the Freeview PVR might only be powered up when required. In that use the average user will expect the Freeview signal to work as normal and will be suprised it does not due to no pass-thru in standby. It follows that the average user will regard that as a fault. So I argue why should I have to buy an add-on to correct what is a fault in the product. Just my POV.
Pollensa1946 – 3 minutes ago »
There’s a subtle but important difference in how satellite PVRs vs Freeview PVRBs are typically used. Most TVs do not have a satellite tuner so the attached satellite PVR is typically going to be powered on all of the time that the TV is in use. Contrast that with all TVs having Freeview tuners and therefore the Freeview PVR might only be powered up when required. In that use the average user will expect the Freeview signal to work as normal and will be suprised it does not due to no pass-thru in standby. It follows that the average user will regard that as a fault. So I argue why should I have to buy an add-on to correct what is a fault in the product. Just my POV.
A splitter can be had for around £2.00. It will pay for itself in a very short period. A very good quality fully screened one for £2.79
If nothing else it makes economic sense to use one in the first place.
Pretty well every new pvr will not have loop through enabled by default anyway. Low Power Sby will be the default setting.
I thought the problem with the 1800/2000T is that there is no provision for you to decide how you want to default – LPS or loopthru. MaYbe I’m wrong.
michaelangelo – 5 minutes ago »
I thought the problem with the 1800/2000T is that there is no provision for you to decide how you want to default – LPS or loopthru. MaYbe I’m wrong.
You get low power sby, currently there is no way to turn off power saving. Humax boxes that do have the option default to Low Power Sby on. I imagine other makes will be the same. A max 0.5W sby mode is mandatory for all new pvrs and set top boxes. Afaik there is no requirement to provide loopthrough sby modes, though in this case I do think it’s an oversight (The other thing you get with low power sby off is a clock on the display. As the boxes don’t have a display there’s no clock anyway).
I do wonder if we may see this lack of loop through on devices more generally? Was it an oversight not to use loop through or is there pressure from Brussels to take away consumer choice in the name of energy saving?
I think you’re right, we will see a lack of loop through generally, it’s also cheaper to manufacture. There’s no arguing that it saves energy; however just like water meters, people cut back, the companies still need to turnover the same revenue make profit and pay shareholders, so the unit price has to go up, the same goes for energy, the more we save the more expensive it will get.
Brussels is a completely different kettle of fish and you’re bringing politics in here, seatbelts, Tachographs in lorries, doctors not forced to work 120 hours a week, worker’s rights, straight bananas, the list goes on.
I don’t think Brussels dictated to Humax, but I don’t see how the loop through could be a simple oversight, I guess Humax are testing the waters, they’ve already got rid of a display.
We all know it’d take seconds to add a line to allow loop through and Barry has already confirmed this should be implemented in the next release.
Back to your original question though, and yes, I expect to see a single RF input in future and we’ll leave Brussels to another day.
Both Humax and Freesat would presumably like their box to be the only box connected to your TV. That probably is quite enough to explain the loop through oversight, be it due to water-testing or wishful thinking.
Perhaps the answer is to build in a passive splitter to new models.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.