Sexview issues since Friday 30th Oct?

[elmin]

In MBit/s ON 9 Dec 09 - according to SatcoDX scan.

SV-THEME X-HARDCORE 0.89
SV-THEME X-FETISH 0.91
SV-THEME X-GROUPS 0.88
SV-THEME X-18 1.3
SV-THEME X-PEEP 1.14
SV-THEME X-BIZARRE 1.04
SV-THEME X-INTER 1.16
SV-THEME X-TRANSX 1.26

all listed as MP@LL low level. Can't see how this is materially different to SCT.

They are still transmitting dodgy MPEG afaics. Channels can take up to 3 secs to open and I see the 'service not running or scrambled' message once about 50% of the time when tuning to a channel.

 

[elmin]

In MBit/s ON 9 Dec 09 - according to SatcoDX scan.

SV-THEME X-HARDCORE 0.89
SV-THEME X-FETISH 0.91
SV-THEME X-GROUPS 0.88
SV-THEME X-18 1.3
SV-THEME X-PEEP 1.14
SV-THEME X-BIZARRE 1.04
SV-THEME X-INTER 1.16
SV-THEME X-TRANSX 1.26

all listed as MP@LL low level. Can't see how this is materially different to SCT.

They are still transmitting dodgy MPEG afaics. Channels can take up to 3 secs to open and I see the 'service not running or scrambled' message once about 50% of the time when tuning to a channel.

 

[psats]

just did a check for you lot they are opening ok here useing an inno

 

[psats]

just did a check for you lot they are opening ok here useing an inno

 

[leecovuk]

all listed as MP@LL low level. Can't see how this is materially different to SCT.

They are still transmitting dodgy MPEG afaics. Channels can take up to 3 secs to open and I see the 'service not running or scrambled' message once about 50% of the time when tuning to a channel.

Did you mean 'SexView' rather than 'SCT'? I assume you did;i.e. comparing Theme-X with the old SexView.

I've dug out and updated a different receiver, a standard definition Vantage; using a Viaccess CAM + card the channels are generally all opening ok for me, taking about 2 seconds to do so. Sometimes slower, however. I think it's fair to say they still haven't got something setup correctly.

Would we currently say that the picture quality has reverted back to how it was on SexView before it went very poor a month or so ago?

 

[leecovuk]

all listed as MP@LL low level. Can't see how this is materially different to SCT.

They are still transmitting dodgy MPEG afaics. Channels can take up to 3 secs to open and I see the 'service not running or scrambled' message once about 50% of the time when tuning to a channel.

Did you mean 'SexView' rather than 'SCT'? I assume you did;i.e. comparing Theme-X with the old SexView.

I've dug out and updated a different receiver, a standard definition Vantage; using a Viaccess CAM + card the channels are generally all opening ok for me, taking about 2 seconds to do so. Sometimes slower, however. I think it's fair to say they still haven't got something setup correctly.

Would we currently say that the picture quality has reverted back to how it was on SexView before it went very poor a month or so ago?

 

[A nonymous]

Nope its still sh*te

Good job theres some good quality ones to watch on 16e otherwise i may be forced to have sexytime with the wife

 

[A nonymous]

Nope its still sh*te

Good job theres some good quality ones to watch on 16e otherwise i may be forced to have sexytime with the wife

 

[elmin]

Did you mean 'SexView' rather than 'SCT'? I assume you did;i.e. comparing Theme-X with the old SexView.

no , I meant SCT.

I've dug out and updated a different receiver, a standard definition Vantage; using a Viaccess CAM + card the channels are generally all opening ok for me, taking about 2 seconds to do so. Sometimes slower, however. I think it's fair to say they still haven't got something setup correctly.

they definitely haven't. Try this experiment - wait until the end of a movie and they start to transmit a static logo picture. Now switch away and back to that channel and see whether it opens or not. I bet you find that it doesn't open for ages. My guess is that they have their encoder set to not produce I-frames often enough ( every 12 frames) if the picture isn't changing.

Would we currently say that the picture quality has reverted back to how it was on SexView before it went very poor a month or so ago?

no - it's worse, because the channels now take 2-3 secs to clear at best. Once they've cleared, yes, I guess the picture is still the same quality as Sexview.

They are also still trying the trick of setting the brightness too high and reducing the contrast, no doubt in another attempt to save bandwidth, so all the stuff looks washed out and milky with no deep blacks.

 

[elmin]

Did you mean 'SexView' rather than 'SCT'? I assume you did;i.e. comparing Theme-X with the old SexView.

no , I meant SCT.

I've dug out and updated a different receiver, a standard definition Vantage; using a Viaccess CAM + card the channels are generally all opening ok for me, taking about 2 seconds to do so. Sometimes slower, however. I think it's fair to say they still haven't got something setup correctly.

they definitely haven't. Try this experiment - wait until the end of a movie and they start to transmit a static logo picture. Now switch away and back to that channel and see whether it opens or not. I bet you find that it doesn't open for ages. My guess is that they have their encoder set to not produce I-frames often enough ( every 12 frames) if the picture isn't changing.

Would we currently say that the picture quality has reverted back to how it was on SexView before it went very poor a month or so ago?

no - it's worse, because the channels now take 2-3 secs to clear at best. Once they've cleared, yes, I guess the picture is still the same quality as Sexview.

They are also still trying the trick of setting the brightness too high and reducing the contrast, no doubt in another attempt to save bandwidth, so all the stuff looks washed out and milky with no deep blacks.

 

[leecovuk]

Hello Elmin and everyone else.

I'll have a test of switching away and back during the static logo. I don't doubt you're right anyway, Elmin, as it seems you've made some well researched points.

My current perception of the actual picture quality once cleared, is the same as earlier, in that it is blocky but watchable and an improvement over the very poor pictures of the last month. Indeed however, no sign of the promised high quality.
Can somebody kindly take some new bit rate measurements and compare them to the last ones? I don't really understand the satcodx site.

I'm also guessing that the quality of the material they are transmitting may in itself be of a poor or blocky quality, previously cached/recorded into their playout system like that. I suppose any channel bit rate readings wouldn't be affected by this, but of course the resulting picture will be.

 

[leecovuk]

Hello Elmin and everyone else.

I'll have a test of switching away and back during the static logo. I don't doubt you're right anyway, Elmin, as it seems you've made some well researched points.

My current perception of the actual picture quality once cleared, is the same as earlier, in that it is blocky but watchable and an improvement over the very poor pictures of the last month. Indeed however, no sign of the promised high quality.
Can somebody kindly take some new bit rate measurements and compare them to the last ones? I don't really understand the satcodx site.

I'm also guessing that the quality of the material they are transmitting may in itself be of a poor or blocky quality, previously cached/recorded into their playout system like that. I suppose any channel bit rate readings wouldn't be affected by this, but of course the resulting picture will be.

 

[cat]

Two points.

I’m finding that the picture stream (but not sound) eventually breaks down after a period of time (like 5 minutes or more) and this can only be remedied by switching away and back to the channel when it’s fine for another 5 minutes. Very annoying.

On the ‘slow channel clearing’ thing: I find that this is indeed what happens - but only with an add-on CAM (ie a new Videoguard-3 CAM or a newish Videoguard-2 CAM). With either of my two hard-wired Videoguard slots, I don’t get this happening!

Overall picture quality is not brilliant but a vast improvement on the previous SV month.

 

[cat]

Two points.

I’m finding that the picture stream (but not sound) eventually breaks down after a period of time (like 5 minutes or more) and this can only be remedied by switching away and back to the channel when it’s fine for another 5 minutes. Very annoying.

On the ‘slow channel clearing’ thing: I find that this is indeed what happens - but only with an add-on CAM (ie a new Videoguard-3 CAM or a newish Videoguard-2 CAM). With either of my two hard-wired Videoguard slots, I don’t get this happening!

Overall picture quality is not brilliant but a vast improvement on the previous SV month.

 

[leecovuk]

Hello Cat,

I haven't found a channel going seemingly audio only after a period of time, but having had the channels on for a while, I am generally finding all that Elmin described.
Sometimes a channel is very slow to open, seemingly carrying just audio, until finally the picture appears.

I can't make any conclusions about whether my current experience differs with a CAM versus any onboard decryption, because I have patched the receiver I'm currently using, which was quite a battle to finally get done, so I can't easily revert to normal usage to make a comparison. (Not that there's any point now anyway in running a patch if you don't have access to Thor for what's left of Nagra2, which I don't.)

Suffice to say though, we're all (?) having issues with the clearing of channels, aren't we.
I suppose those like me with a subscription soon ending, have to weigh up whether the 'better' picture quality is worthy of a new subscription, whilst tolerating the flaky implementation that Theme X / SexView have in place.

I am/was considering the Satisfaction package instead, which I've learned a little about on this forum, but I haven't learned enough to confidently know if I would be generally happy with its content and quality. I'm certainly not going to subscribe to something, yet again, in a mainly blind way.

 

[leecovuk]

Hello Cat,

I haven't found a channel going seemingly audio only after a period of time, but having had the channels on for a while, I am generally finding all that Elmin described.
Sometimes a channel is very slow to open, seemingly carrying just audio, until finally the picture appears.

I can't make any conclusions about whether my current experience differs with a CAM versus any onboard decryption, because I have patched the receiver I'm currently using, which was quite a battle to finally get done, so I can't easily revert to normal usage to make a comparison. (Not that there's any point now anyway in running a patch if you don't have access to Thor for what's left of Nagra2, which I don't.)

Suffice to say though, we're all (?) having issues with the clearing of channels, aren't we.
I suppose those like me with a subscription soon ending, have to weigh up whether the 'better' picture quality is worthy of a new subscription, whilst tolerating the flaky implementation that Theme X / SexView have in place.

I am/was considering the Satisfaction package instead, which I've learned a little about on this forum, but I haven't learned enough to confidently know if I would be generally happy with its content and quality. I'm certainly not going to subscribe to something, yet again, in a mainly blind way.

 

[cat]

I am still getting video stream breakdown. Sometimes soon and sometimes after maybe 10 minutes or more.

 

[cat]

I am still getting video stream breakdown. Sometimes soon and sometimes after maybe 10 minutes or more.

 

[elmin]

I am still getting video stream breakdown. Sometimes soon and sometimes after maybe 10 minutes or more.

Hi cat,

does this happen on the FTA channels called FREE THEME-X-INFO- or THEME X-FTA-INFO too, or just the scrambled ones ?

 

[elmin]

I am still getting video stream breakdown. Sometimes soon and sometimes after maybe 10 minutes or more.

Hi cat,

does this happen on the FTA channels called FREE THEME-X-INFO- or THEME X-FTA-INFO too, or just the scrambled ones ?