An odd quality "thing"

Status
Please reply by conversation.

RT-Cat

"My person-well trained"
May 30, 2011
1,659
236
Cold, Cold,Michigan USA
An odd thing about quality and holding a picture.
MeTv -101 clean dish-no snow: S-90 Q72 perfect picture. Fill the dish up with snow and Q drops to 45 and picture goes out or freezes.
Now go to 103 Ion East HD on 4040, NO SNOW on dish. S-90 Q-4, 25, 30, 14, 4, 7, 9 bouncing all over the place. BUT perfect picture! No break up, no problem.
So how is it possible to have Q at 45 and no picture, but have another channel as low as Q of 4 and not have ANY breakup. What is so good about Ion on 4040?
 

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
3,653
15,942
Mankato, MN
The FEC is different (Forward Error Correction)

MeTV (according to Lyngsat) is 5/6
Ion is 2/3
(3/4 is what alot of stations use)

Here is some technical info on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_error_correction
http://excellentthreads.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-is-forward-error-correction-in.html

In "simple terms" the higher the FEC the more signal you need to keep it stable. 1/2 is the lowest and back in the day White Springs used that. You could literally have 0 quality and it would be stable. Thats also why when I had my 6 foot dish I could get most everything but the CBS HD feeds because they were 9/10.

Back when Equity had their KU feeds and the C-Band the KU was 3/4 FEC but the C-Band was 7/8. So on my old Pansat 1500 a 30 quality would keep the KU stable but needed a 75 or greater to keep the C-Band stable.
 

catamount

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 9, 2009
645
179
maritimes
Iceberg nailed it. Back when I was mini-bud testing , I could get Word network on 91 West showing 0 Quality on the viewsat. The CNX showed 5 Quality. Other transponders needed either 26 or 37 to remain stable.

Catamount
 

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
3,653
15,942
Mankato, MN
Iceberg nailed it. Back when I was mini-bud testing , I could get Word network on 91 West showing 0 Quality on the viewsat. The CNX showed 5 Quality. Other transponders needed either 26 or 37 to remain stable.

Catamount

looking at Lyngsat Word Network is a 1/2 FEC
 

RT-Cat

"My person-well trained"
May 30, 2011
1,659
236
Cold, Cold,Michigan USA
Great pile of information. Answered my question very well. One part of the info brought back memories of the early days of when I first messed with FTA: "In some early digital receivers, the FEC parameter has to be typed in by users. As the process rate of the CPU of digital receivers improves, today's digital satellite receiver can measure the FEC parameter automatically, thus users don't have to type in the parameter any more." My first receiver had to be typed in.
 

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
3,653
15,942
Mankato, MN
Why don't they all use the better FEC? Is it that the equipment for better is more expensive?

define better? Higher (as in 9/10) or lower (as in 1/2)?

the lower the FEC (1/2 being the lowest) the easier it is to pick up on a "smaller" dish...there is plenty of room for error correction to keep the signal stable.

There is no difference if you run 1/2 or 7/8. Again it all depends on how much of the signal you are going to use to "clean up the crap" and have it play smoothly. For us hobbyists we want lower (1/2, 3/4). Once you get to 5/6 then you start needing preciser aiming or a bigger dish
 

. Raine

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Aug 6, 2013
2,691
948
North America, CT.
I was thinking better as lower, in being easier to receive. If the signal is going to be broadcast, then why not use the lower FEC and make it more reliable, is what I was thinking. I think from Waylew's post that probably in say, 1/2 FEC, half of the signal is used for picture info and then the other half is used for whatever else, guide, captioning, etc?

Or is it half of the signal is for picture info and the rest is for FEC, thus less FEC would equal better picture quality, but tougher to receive?
 
Last edited:

northgeorgia

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 14, 2011
1,557
211
North GA
I was thinking better as lower, in being easier to receive. If the signal is going to be broadcast, then why not use the lower FEC and make it more reliable, is what I was thinking.

I may be wrong here but I think, at least as far as this goes, when you start looking at the broadcasts at 9/10 FECs and many of the 7/8 FECs, they're mostly feeds for networks with huge dishes set on the satellite to rebroadcast, and not intended for the FTA viewer.
 

waylew

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 23, 2010
2,960
1,292
northern WEST new york
I was thinking better as lower, in being easier to receive. If the signal is going to be broadcast, then why not use the lower FEC and make it more reliable, is what I was thinking. I think from Waylew's post that probably in say, 1/2 FEC, half of the signal is used for picture info and then the other half is used for whatever else, guide, captioning, etc?
For those to whom these signals are intended,they have the equipment to reliably receive said signals,big dishes etc.And they want the best quality to start with,before they downgrade,compress,and sub channel it to death.As far as CC,etc,that stuff uses a very small (insignificant) part of the signal.Being easier to receive is mainly a concern for us,and being as we're not the intended target,we are of no concern at all to them,with a few exceptions.
 

. Raine

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Aug 6, 2013
2,691
948
North America, CT.
Northgeorgia and Waylew, thanks for explaining that, I got it now! Wasn't thinking along the lines of that FTA'ers aren't the intended recipients of the signal. Makes perfect sense to me now, thanks.
 
Last edited:

N0QBH

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 13, 2006
226
82
Central MN
I was thinking better as lower, in being easier to receive. If the signal is going to be broadcast, then why not use the lower FEC and make it more reliable, is what I was thinking. I think from Waylew's post that probably in say, 1/2 FEC, half of the signal is used for picture info and then the other half is used for whatever else, guide, captioning, etc?

Or is it half of the signal is for picture info and the rest is for FEC, thus less FEC would equal better picture quality, but tougher to receive?

Been coding for another project that uses FEC and have had to learn a little about it. The fraction or ratio is the the number of bits in over the number of bits out of the FEC encoder. The larger the difference, the more error correction capacity. The smaller the difference, the more efficient it is.
 

Balock

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
May 4, 2006
624
71
Beebe, AR
Not directly: The higher the FEC value (7/8 vs 1/2, for instance) the less information the receiver now has to correct errors encountered in the received data, therefore the ability to maintain the original quality of the picture is reduced and the better the signal required to receive. The broadcaster could still send a crappy original no matter the FEC used ;)

EDIT: Corrected my original statement
 
Last edited:

Titanium

AI6US
Lifetime Supporter
May 23, 2013
7,707
9,212
Meadow Vista, Northern California
Audio, CC, EPG data is allocated as part of the transport stream and don't use the "extra" space afforded by lower FEC. Picture quality is only one factor when a satellite broadcaster selects a FEC. A link budget determining the delivery requirements of a service is created while arranging for the lease or usage of bandwidth on a satellite. Together, the signal type, power, FEC and bandwidth selection determines the robustness and quality of the service. This calculation determines the parameters required to deliver the complete transport stream (that encapsulates the video, audio, cc, epg, etc.) within a specific region using minimium equipment requirements with an expected up-time.

If the link budget is for the downlink facilities which have small aperture dishes, located near the edge of a footprint or where conditions affect reception, then a lower FEC might be selected. This lower FEC is not as efficient by using the least amount of bandwidth to deliver the same data, but it would allow smaller dishes or in regions with inclement weather conditions to receive enough data and have more data duplication to mask the errors that are caused from not receiving all of the data on the first pass.

Downlinks with larger dishes, located in prime footprints and minimal signal attenuation receive more data without errors and do not require the extra duplication of data to mask and correct errors. For these link budgets, a higher FEC might be used so either less bandwidth is used (lower cost) or the same bandwidth is used to provide increased picture, audio or data streams.
 

Mr Tony

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Nov 17, 2003
3,653
15,942
Mankato, MN
I may be wrong here but I think, at least as far as this goes, when you start looking at the broadcasts at 9/10 FECs and many of the 7/8 FECs, they're mostly feeds for networks with huge dishes set on the satellite to rebroadcast, and not intended for the FTA viewer.

yup pretty much
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Satellite Nation Episode #39

Sports Time Ohio

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top