Quote:
Originally Posted by pictureon
As for the receiver. 11836 is stronger than 12146 regardless of the reason. I had so many trouble calls where only channels on 11836 are available because of low signal. I do not agree with people who go very deep in the technology of the satellites when replying to a simple question. I know it might be good to have this knowledge, but when a simple question is being asked, it would be nice to have a simple answer. Sadoun may be asked to create a section for high tech questions and answers. |
I don't think there is anything high tech involved here. You are right that 11836 will appear to be a stronger signal on a receiver, from a signal strength viewpoint, because it is at a lower frequency, as with most systems, the signal strength tends to fall off when going from 11700-12200. If you look at the trace I posted yesterday in the
http://www.sadoun.net/forums/faq-new...html#post45733
thread, you'll see that the general signal strength on my system is higher at the left than it is at the right, due to the fact that I have quite a long coax run, about 240' . However this absolute signal strength isn't really that important. What is more important is the peak height, ie the difference between the peaks and the valleys. Even on my trace, you are right that on the receiver, the signal strength of the 11836 would appear to be stronger than the 12146, but the absolute signal strength really doesn't mean much, as it is largely due to noise. Everyone here is familiar with the concept that before they found satellites that they were getting signal strength readings even when not pointed at a sat.... that's the noise, and that's the valleys I'm talking about, which will be greater at lower freq usually. What is important is the signal to noise, peak vs valleys, and when looking at it that way there really isn't much difference in those two signals, and 12146 is really a stronger signal when compared to the noise floor.
Saying that it is a weak signal may be a simple answer, and re-aligning may well help the problem, particularly since apparently this person was getting the channel before, so something probably moved his dish a bit. But there are so many times I read about a signal being weak when it just isn't true. The problem usually is that these little dishes just aren't capable of eliminating the signal from adjacent satellites, so that some transponders are harder to get than other due to interferrence. The real solution is to go to a bigger dish which has better resolution. I just don't see where it helps to blame it on the satellite when it isn't the satellite's fault.