- This topic has 40 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
But with such high signal (even 86% may be too high) unless you dial in more attenuation to reduce the signal on both, you aren’t testing or proving/disproving anything.
However, I am of a mind to think that it’s probably not signal related anyway because 2 channel is 2 channel and 5.1 is 5.1, irrespective of signal strength.
Apart from this.
My 4000t indicates 93% strength 100% quality without attenuation and if I rapidly change up/down the channels I can get a few seconds of stuttering. But if I attenuate down to about 80% strength this stuttering completely disappears.
I suspect that there is some sort of software based attenuation in operation and rapidly swapping channels means that it needs to settle if I change to the higher signal channels.
With the Aura, perhaps the same happens and combined with the processing required to swap decoding from 2-5.1ch,there is a momentary bottleneck in the processing capability?
SSThing – 2 hours ago »
But with such high signal (even 86% may be too high) unless you dial in more attenuation to reduce the signal on both, you aren’t testing or proving/disproving anything.
However, I am of a mind to think that it’s probably not signal related anyway because 2 channel is 2 channel and 5.1 is 5.1, irrespective of signal strength.
Apart from this.
My 4000t indicates 93% strength 100% quality without attenuation and if I rapidly change up/down the channels I can get a few seconds of stuttering. But if I attenuate down to about 80% strength this stuttering completely disappears.
I suspect that there is some sort of software based attenuation in operation and rapidly swapping channels means that it needs to settle if I change to the higher signal channels.
With the Aura, perhaps the same happens and combined with the processing required to swap decoding from 2-5.1ch,there is a momentary bottleneck in the processing capability?
In the 9th post in this topic the OP quotes a response he got from Humax
‘That model has 3 tuners in it, so they are only getting a third of the signal strength each, to accommodate for this we had to turn up the sensitivity of the tuners, but because of that any signal strength 90% or over can overload the tuners and cause issues. A very simple remedy is to fit an attenuator to reduce the signal’
The OP goes on to say in further posts he was using an attenuator set at 85% strength. I used 86% (as close as I could get to 85% with my attenuator, any further reduction would give 82%) to correlate with the OP and as Humax quote above 90% strength could be an issue then I assume that 86% strength (less 90%) should be, as far as Humax is concerned, OK for input signal strength.
But Humax tech support are only giving you half the story.
As I explained here:-
https://myhumax.org/forum/topic/just-got-aura-few-little-niggles
in post #7.
SSThing – 15 mins ago »
But Humax tech support are only giving you half the story.
As I explained here:-
https://myhumax.org/forum/topic/just-got-aura-few-little-niggles
in post #7.
It would be good to hear from a ‘signal expert’ about what is the best signal strength range, upper and lower for the Aura, if such a person exists.
Interesting what you say about much lower signal levels being ok as long as quality is 100%. I just don’t know. But surely you want it as high as you can get it but below 90% in the Aura?
Yes Humax support can seem a bit variable in quality of advice. It seems like they are not always as tech savvy as perhaps we would want. They actually sent me an attenuator in the post though.
Is it really the case that each tuner ‘only gets a third of the signal’. I seem to remember someone questioning that. Does it depend on tuners being mounted in series or in parallel? I have one aerial on my house and a splitter put in by aerial fitter. Do both my humax boxes still get 100% signal? They seem to. Signal isn’t like water is it; you can’t divide it like that?
Also as you say this signal strength explanation doesn’t address the sound being broadcast in PCM 5.1 or Stereo and that picture would freeze when broadcast moved from one to the other.
Yes, of course it makes sense to have a stronger signal, but to assign an arbitrary figure is wrong.
A bit like a car in the good old days.
Too much fuel through the carburettor would be as detrimental as not enough. Tweak the mixture and you can get it just right. But this will be slightly different for each and every car based on fuel, air temperatures, driving style etc etc etc.
And Paul, now that I have read your post #9 (it’s a bit confusing because there are two threads discussing almost the same thing) I see that Humax have confirmed my suspicion and that there is software based amplification/attenuation in the system.
And telltuff, my advice is still the same.
Until you do further tests (by dialling in more attenuation), comparing the same results from 86% and 100% devices is pointless because 86% may still be far too much for your particular area/device.
Paul Bton – 51 mins ago »
It would be good to hear from a ‘signal expert’ about what is the best signal strength range, upper and lower for the Aura, if such a person exists.
Interesting what you say about much lower signal levels being ok as long as quality is 100%. I just don’t know. But surely you want it as high as you can get it but below 90% in the Aura?
I can’t speak for the Aura but with other Humax devices the signal strength is a secondary issue and all that matters is that the signal quality is 100%. I operated a Humax recorder for several years without problems on a 30% signal strength. With analogue broadcasts there was an advantage in having the highest workable signal strength but with digital broadcast streams, that have built in error correction, I don’t think there is much to gain by maximising signal strength.
Martin Liddle – 3 hours ago »
Paul Bton – 51 mins ago »
It would be good to hear from a ‘signal expert’ about what is the best signal strength range, upper and lower for the Aura, if such a person exists.
Interesting what you say about much lower signal levels being ok as long as quality is 100%. I just don’t know. But surely you want it as high as you can get it but below 90% in the Aura?
I can’t speak for the Aura but with other Humax devices the signal strength is a secondary issue and all that matters is that the signal quality is 100%. I operated a Humax recorder for several years without problems on a 30% signal strength. With analogue broadcasts there was an advantage in having the highest workable signal strength but with digital broadcast streams, that have built in error correction, I don’t think there is much to gain by maximising signal strength.
Ok but please don’t bring other Humax devices into the discussion as we are told the Aura is a new beast with sensitive tuners. So comparisons are not helpful.
Maybe all this signal discussion is irrelevant and it will all be fixed in software or firmware. Please don’t use term ‘fw’ as it also means ‘f**k with’.
SSThing – 3 hours ago »
And Paul, now that I have read your post #9 (it’s a bit confusing because there are two threads discussing almost the same thing) I see that Humax have confirmed my suspicion and that there is software based amplification/attenuation in the system.
And telltuff, my advice is still the same.
Until you do further tests (by dialling in more attenuation), comparing the same results from 86% and 100% devices is pointless because 86% may still be far too much for your particular area/device.
Can we have the full quote from Humax please? Or where in forum it is cited?
Yes other thread was started up with title that I did not realise was the same issue. I think titles should describe the problem not a possible hypothesis about the cause. But maybe that’s just me.
There was quite a long post from someone doing some testing, in the last couple of days, that included a reply from Humax where they stated (iirc) that the Aura used the same tuner as “previous” equipment… That would certainly suggest the 4000t/5000t, so some comparisons are legitimate.
However that post has disappeared (the original poster did wonder whether he was bound by some sort of nda, clearly someone thinks he was).
Unless I can’t see the wood for the trees when I look for it?
Found it.
https://myhumax.org/forum/topic/hd-channel-brief-pixilationsound-issue-update#post-92444
They say successor to previous tuner, to me that suggests based on.
SSThing – 1 hour ago »
Found it.
https://myhumax.org/forum/topic/hd-channel-brief-pixilationsound-issue-update#post-92444
They say successor to previous tuner, to me that suggests based on.
Thanks for that. I had read that bit but not put it all together. So perhaps it is all due to the firmware on the ‘Demodulator chip’ which is causing problems. And it is NOT the same as on other Humax models, but a ‘successor’ chip (so I think please no more discussion on 4000T or 5000T signal issues). On that post it was about brief pixilation when coming out of an app. But could it also cause freezes on the PCM sound issue?
As I have surmised in one of my previous posts, there is lot going on in the software at any one time. Demodulation/amplification/attenuation/coding/transcoding/swapping audio/swapping resolution etc etc etc. Perhaps there is an occasional bottleneck in processing if too many things happen simultaneously?
And Humax have already advised you personally that attenuation might be a solution (although they do have a habit of blaming signal for everything) so the experience of 4000t/5000t owners, with regard to that, is absolutely relevant because it affected so many.
I’d bet my house that a lot of the components in the Aura are the same as in earlier models. Designing a device like this from the ground up would not be in any way cost effective, there’s probably components from 10 years ago inside. The 4000t and 5000t had the exact same motherboard. The biggest difference between the Aura and the previous models is the operating system and its obvious that pre-release testing had not ironed out enough of the problems (impossible to predict everything but a lot seemed have been missed).
SSThing – 1 min ago »
As I have surmised in one of my previous posts, there is lot going on in the software at any one time. Demodulation/amplification/attenuation/coding/transcoding/swapping audio/swapping resolution etc etc etc. Perhaps there is an occasional bottleneck in processing if too many things happen simultaneously?
And Humax have already advised you personally that attenuation might be a solution (although they do have a habit of blaming signal for everything) so the experience of 4000t/5000t owners, with regard to that, is absolutely relevant because it affected so many.
I’d bet my house that a lot of the components in the Aura are the same as in earlier models. Designing a device like this from the ground up would not be in any way cost effective, there’s probably components from 10 years ago inside. The 4000t and 5000t had the exact same motherboard. The biggest difference between the Aura and the previous models is the operating system and its obvious that pre-release testing had not ironed out enough of the problems (impossible to predict everything but a lot seemed have been missed).
Yes previous experience relevant and some components and design maybe the same but it is a ‘successor demodulator chip’ and firmware on that chip. So: old and new. I won’t ask for your house if I am right
I think maybe the attenuator is a short term fix until the problem is fully identified and a firmware fix can be tested and sent out. Just my opinion.
SSThing – 3 days ago »
But Humax tech support are only giving you half the story.
As I explained here:-
https://myhumax.org/forum/topic/just-got-aura-few-little-niggles
in post #7.
Ok thanks for your input. Taking on board your comments regarding signal level I attempting to see if the fault manifests with the lowest input signal level which can achieve 100% quality. On Saturday evening 14/08/21 I reduced the input signal on one of my Auras (the one connected directly to the TV) and 100% quality could be achieved with a signal strength of 8% on CH4 HD (CH21 on the Rowridge transmitter) with any further attenuation reducing quality. To get this low a signal strength I had to use 2 attenuators in series and at this level of attenuation only CH21 was ok all others channels showing a significant drop in quality (the worst being CH25 on Rowridge with 25% quality). Periodic checks on the signal for an hour or so indicated that for CH4 HD 100% quality was maintained at 8% signal strength on Saturday evening.
On this Aura and my other Aura (100% strength and quality) I recorded the film Red Sparrow on CH4 HD. When the recordings were played back at ad breaks when the audio stream switched from stereo to multichannel a freeze could occur on both machines. Repeated rewinding and playing over this audio stream transition did show the heavily attenuated machine was less likely to freeze than the unattenuated machine, but that it could freeze. The unattenuated machine freezing 3 out of 10 times and the attenuated machine freezing 1 out of 10 times that the audio transition point was repeatedly replayed.
It appears to me that currently the Aura does have a problem handling a change in audio stream from stereo to multichannel. It appears that the issue can be made to manifest less frequently by reducing input signal but not totally prevented. In practice if a sweet spot can be found for an input signal level robust enough for reliable operation on all channels but low enough to prevent too many problems at changes in audio stream will probably vary from user to user. In my case 8% signal strength was to low for all other channels apart from CH21 transmitted from Rowridge on 14/08/21 and by Monday 16/8/21 it was to low for reliable reception of CH21 with quality dropping off leading to low signal warnings and picture artifacts. Further testing at higher input signal levels may provide me with a sweet spot until hopefully the firmware fix mentioned in other posts is supplied.
Further thoughts and suggestions welcomed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.