Kitz Forum

Computers & Hardware => Other Technologies & Hardware => Topic started by: chrissie on February 03, 2011, 07:32:48 AM

Title: TV question...
Post by: chrissie on February 03, 2011, 07:32:48 AM
Hope this is the place to post this one.  A friend has bought a small tv for the kitchen ( :-X) but the aerial on it is no good for a decent picture, he even got a booster aerial from Argos to try but it wasn't any good so took that back.  I don't think we have a good main signal in this area anyway as portable aerials don't work much at all here.

The question is, can he get a signal to the portable TV (I don't know what make it is)....without running a splitter cable off of his main aerial or does he have to do it that way?  (Personally I wouldn't bother as the kitchen isn't big enough to swing a cat in...as if you'd want to...and no seats to sit and watch tv  :-X).  I was wondering if there's technology out there that will send a signal from one set to another without the need for all the wiring or am I way ahead of my time here and full of wishful thinking?   ;D

Thanks in advance if anyone is kind enough to reply.

Chrissie
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: roseway on February 03, 2011, 07:52:33 AM
You can get things called video senders, which might do the job, but they're not particularly cheap. There's some information about them here, (http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/accessories.html#sender) and you can click on the link at the end of the section for more information. I'm not sure that I would bother. :)

PS: While I was in the bathroom attempting unsuccessfully to beautify myself, it occurred to me that these aren't really what you're looking for. They don't transmit the aerial signal, they distribute the signal being received by a Freeview or Sky box (or video recorder) and enable a remote TV to be used as a monitor for that signal.
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: silversurfer44 on February 03, 2011, 08:45:15 AM
I've had a sender receiver pair for a good few years, it wasn't cheap. The thing is it only works on the composite signal out from another tv, which also means the slave tv will only show the current tv channel on the sender side. The one I have incorporates the Infra Red channel signals so the sending tv channel can be changed from the slave receiving unit. Of course the same can be done for a set top box. It's quite good, only computer wifi signals can interfere with it quite badly. I don't know if you can still get them. It is an expensive way to go though. A splitter cable would be much cheaper and less prone to interference.
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: tonyappuk on February 03, 2011, 11:51:45 AM
Chrissie
I would go for a splitter and a cable to the new TV. It's what I have done for our kitchen TV. If you have a good signal a passive splitter will do which is the cheapest option. As far as routing the cable goes I was lucky in that the main drain from the bathroom is routed down through the kitchen in a boxed in enclosure and I was able to route the cable inside the enclosure. This saved going down the outside wall and in through the window frame or where ever. If the signal is not very strong a dual output pre-amp will be needed to split the signal.
Tony
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: chrissie on February 04, 2011, 11:39:31 AM
Hiya

Many thanks for your help over this one.  I think the splitter is the best way as you say, so I'll tell my friend and let him get on with it  ;D  I think he would be able to do it from indoors rather than outside and drill through the wall and the run of cable wouldn't be as much.  All too technical for me,  :D but at least you know what it's all about and so should he now lol.

Thanks again

Chrissie
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: jeffbb on February 05, 2011, 03:19:46 PM
Hi

quote : can he get a signal to the portable TV

Do you mean Freeview or Sky .

Has he got freeview to his current main TV? if yes then a cble from the sky box is all that is required . That will give the same freeview channels + the current Sky channel that is running .

Regards Jeff
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: silversurfer44 on February 05, 2011, 05:45:34 PM
How is he going to change channels if he's in the kitchen and the set-top box is in another room.
For £20 he could have another set-top box and take a splitter off of the main coax and havr it all in the kitchen.
My set-top box has a UHF output so he could get one like mine and daisy chain into the kitchen.
Mind you it's no good if he wants to swing a cat in there. ;D
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: jeffbb on February 05, 2011, 06:43:46 PM
Hi
quote : How is he going to change channels if he's in the kitchen and the set-top box is in another room.

Depends what you are talking about .

1 if Freeview is available at primary TV then the same signal is routed directly through the sky box to the second TV where channel selection is done as normal.

edit Sky box has 1 UHF input and 2 UHF outputs . one normally connect to TV one , second available for TV2 .

edit plus of course the normal scart connections
 

Regards Jeff
Title: Re: TV question...diagram
Post by: jeffbb on February 05, 2011, 07:39:21 PM
Hi
see attached for a general idea
regards Jeff

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: silversurfer44 on February 05, 2011, 07:54:23 PM
Wow that's a bit like spaghetti. I have an idea what you mean.
To be honest I believe the set up that the chap has is not connected to a Sky box. Mine is not a sky box either, just a set-top digital converter, which means the only way to change channels is at the set-top box. The set up I'm talking about is much simpler.
Thanks for the diagram Jeff.
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: chrissie on February 05, 2011, 11:12:36 PM
Hi Guys

Jeff.....he only has a freeview box and I read that if you reroute through that you can only watch the one programme on the freeview box, what he wants to do is be able to get the main channels like BBc1 Itv etc etc... so I don't think he would bother with wires from the freeview but do a splitter on the main aerial.  Will see what he goes with eventually, but thanks for your help anyway, just wish they had a system where you don't have to have loadsa spaghetti like we have here....I'd love to get rid of ours but with all connected it's impossible unless one is a genius in electronics methinks lol.

Chrissie
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: silversurfer44 on February 06, 2011, 08:04:00 AM
Your description is what I read from your OP Chrissie. Four posts back would be the way to go I feel.
How is he going to change channels if he's in the kitchen and the set-top box is in another room.
For £20 he could have another set-top box and take a splitter off of the main coax and have it in the kitchen.
As I don't have Sky I am not familiar with the various hook ups and mine is simply a coax from the old Ariel and a box on top of the telly and that's it. The computer system is a different story all together. Miles of spaghetti with that.
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: silversurfer44 on February 06, 2011, 03:13:12 PM
This is what I was thinking of.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: roseway on February 06, 2011, 04:29:44 PM
That's the (simplest) way to do it. :)
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: jeffbb on February 06, 2011, 07:51:24 PM
Hi

That is assuming the second TV does not pick up Digital signals .

quote  A friend has bought a small tv for the kitchen

but the aerial on it is no good for a decent picture

If he has just bought it then I would think it has its own internal tuner which seems to be the case as the picture is there but not very good  .

Set top boxes are only required when using older ANALOGUE TVS .

so the only requirement will be a cable from the splitter .

Regards Jeff
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: silversurfer44 on February 06, 2011, 08:06:29 PM
Of course you are correct about the set-top box, however the rest of the diagram should still stand.
Without the information I am guessing a little bit. Also I don't know if the analogue signal has been switched off in his area. I do believe there are still some areas on analogue.
I'm trying to be not too technical for the OP. Not saying that Chrissie is stupid, just some of it is not in her comfort zone.
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: chrissie on February 06, 2011, 08:29:37 PM
Sorry guys I complicated the matter...I meant he doesn't have Sky only freeview and analogue, it's not switched off here til 2012 (swines lol wish they would leave well alone..but that's just me).  The new tv is digital and analogue and the aerial for it doesn't give a good picture, he has an outside digital aerial and freeview box and just wants a decent pic on the new set in the kitchen.  I think the splitter is about it for him but I think he may need a booster too on the main aerial/set....  Gawd knows why he wants a tv in the kitchen but each to his own lol.   :D













Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: tonyappuk on February 07, 2011, 02:14:16 AM
A passive splitter is quite cheap (£5?) and might be worth a gamble because modern digital TVs have more sensitive tuners but you may need an active splitter with some gain to satisfy the original set which may be older and possibly less sensitive. The passive filter introduces some loss so it depends on the strength of the original signal.
Tony
Title: Re: TV question...
Post by: jeffbb on February 07, 2011, 02:03:37 PM
Hi
If you are not getting a good picture on TV1 then you need to use  areal that gives a better Gain with a  splitter .

If TV1 has a Good picture then maybe a basic splitter would be OK . However when using a splitter you do lose some signal so It may be better to use one that provides 2 amplified outlets

for info for any one having poor reception

An aerial that I am using http://www.toolstation.com/shop/Electrical/TV+Satellite/SLx+Megaboost+Aerial+Kit+1+Way/d190/sd3084/p92687
enables me to receive the signals from the old Granada TX which for this area is supposedly not available .

This aerial is only 2FT long and about  8" wide max

Regards Jeff