Hi guys,
2009/1/27 Tobias Stoeber <t...@to-st.de>:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> Just had a look at your zip archive and the files.
>
> Christoph Pfister schrieb:
>> I've updated my de-files:
>> - fixed the url (inserted the wrong one by accident)
>> - fixed vhf channels (they were using 8mhz because my trigger was wrong)
>> - add the the "# CHxy: name of programs" information
>> - 563 MHz --> 562 MHz (their pdf seems to use a wrong frequency for channel
>> 32)
As Hermann already pointed out, I've committed these files to hg. I've
extracted as much information as possible from the pdf (there are
still errors remaining: a ch65 <--> 778 MHz mapping somewhere, which
I'll fix myself, and the Hamburg 1/4 <--> 1/8 duplication, which I
won't touch) and I've done some spot checks against the existing scan
data. This should help many regions (where the scan files were just
collecting dust). So please (re-)post your additions relative to these
files.
> You are right. 562 MHz as nominal frequency is correct, because for
> DVB-T this is calculated 306 MHz + channel number x 8 MHz. VHF would be
> 142.5 MHz + channel number x 7 MHz.
>
> It's just a centre frequency used for tuning purposes. The DVB-T signal
> should (ideally) use a 8 MHz width space from 559.25 MHz to 567.25 MHz
> for Ch 32.
>
>> But I haven't looked at the new documents proposed in this thread yet.
>
> I didn't compare that either. Could also be difficult, because of
> different revision dates.
>
> Looking through your files in the zip archive, it rose some questions in
> my mind:
>
> a) is it really useful to have scan files by federal state (Bundesland)?
>
> Just let me explain with an example. I live in Sachsen-Anhalt on the
> north of the Harz Mountains area. To effectivly ("best") use DVB-T I do
> combine both transmitters in Sachsen-Anhalt (Mt. Brocken) and from
> Niedersachsen (Braunschweig). This is because some channels are only
> available from a specific transmitting site (private channels only from
> Braunschweig, RBB only from Brocken). The same applies to other regions
> in Sachsen-Anhalt (south east will have reception from Sachsen and
> Thüringen, north east from Berlin / Brandeburg etc.)
>
> I think, this situation will also apply to other federal states.
>
> => I personally would prefer to stay with or alternatively provide a
> region based file, so I could look up and combine the regions of
> interest. What do you think?
There are always "edge" cases, between transmitters, regions or
countries. If you want, you can always c&p from different files (they
don't hurt each other). But the cost-benefit side looks a bit
different: Using that pdf I could (hopefully) produce working data for
many people. Imho taking care of all those intersection cases is more
effort and not necessarily justified. And I reall hope that auto-scan
will spread more ...
> b) Conflicting information
>
> In your "Sachsen-Anhalt" scanfile you list on Ch 24 the ARD multiplex
> with (Halle-Stadt):
>
> T 498000000 8MHz 2/3 NONE QAM64 8k 1/4 NONE
> # CH24: Das Erste, arte, Phoenix, EinsFestival
>
> which is for a large part of Sachsen-Anhalt useless (we can't receive
> that), as we actually receive on Ch 24 (from Braunschweig)
>
> T 498000000 8MHz 2/3 NONE QAM16 8k 1/4 NONE
> # CH24: RTL, RTL II, Super RTL, VOX
>
> => have a look at QAM, its QAM64 in your scanfile and QAM16 for Ch24 we
> actually receive.
>
> => Does it matter, e.g. would instead of the unreceivable Ch24 from
> Halle-Stadt the Braunschweig Ch24 be found? (I did not test this).
>
> c) You clearly missed out some information. I noticed for instance Ch 37
> in Leipzig (Sachsen) which is the "Leipzig 1" multiplex
>
> Please have a look at the already posted link to SLM or my homepage:
>
> http://www.to-st.de/content/projects/dvb-t/dvbt-sender-leipzig.de.html
>
> On the other hand I doubt, that it would be a useful entry into a
> "Sachsen" scanfile because reception is limited to the area of the city
> of Lepzig.
>
> As I have no overview of regional "special projects" in other area, such
> omissions in the files may apply to other areas too.
>
> @Barry
>
> Just as a sidenote and for historical purposes I may point you to:
>
> http://www.ifn.ing.tu-bs.de/itg/docs/030403Braunschweig/ITG030403Hoehne_Frequenzplanung.pdf
>
> which gives an overview how in 2003 the concept for the north of Germany
> had been planned. This information is obsolete and has changed, but the
> document show a bit, how decisions evolved in consideration of federal
> state and "Medienanstalt" boundaries (e.g. Bremen) etc.
>
> Regards, Tobias
Christoph
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
