Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SciDoctor" data-source="post: 88740" data-attributes="member: 11346">Just because a channel is not being grabbed next doesn't mean it is not going to get grabbed.OF COURSE IT WORKS, every channel is grabbed just the order of the grab is different to prioritise the least time to get to every MUX .You obviously didn't read my post , I am not the one missing channels just because a grab occured .If a MUX frequency is poor data wise for whatever reason EVERY channel on that MUX is affected .If there are 100 channels and each channel has data just for itself then there is no avoiding that a channel will be garbbed the last whatever order you grab.If there are 100 channels split over ten MUX each channel carries the data for every channel on that MUX the quickest way to get the most data is to try one channel form each MUX .If you have a mix of the above two options then trying each MUX in turn is still the quickest way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SciDoctor, post: 88740, member: 11346"] Just because a channel is not being grabbed next doesn't mean it is not going to get grabbed. OF COURSE IT WORKS, every channel is grabbed just the order of the grab is different to prioritise the least time to get to every MUX . You obviously didn't read my post , I am not the one missing channels just because a grab occured . If a MUX frequency is poor data wise for whatever reason EVERY channel on that MUX is affected . If there are 100 channels and each channel has data just for itself then there is no avoiding that a channel will be garbbed the last whatever order you grab. If there are 100 channels split over ten MUX each channel carries the data for every channel on that MUX the quickest way to get the most data is to try one channel form each MUX . If you have a mix of the above two options then trying each MUX in turn is still the quickest way. [/QUOTE]

Verification