View Full Version : more than 8 tuners on swm
how would a system be affected by adding say a ninth or tenth tuner to a SWM-8. someone told me they did this and i want to know what and how would the problems arrise? would they only show up if certain tuners where on the same channel or vice versa, etc.
Draconis
11-07-08, 08:55 PM
I'm not the authority but I was told that (if you overloaded a SWM with too many IRD's) you would start seeing SFSS.
Most commonly on the IRD's that are physically located the furthest away from the SWM.
I reserve the right to be wrong on this one because I am not 100% certain.
how would a system be affected by adding say a ninth or tenth tuner to a SWM-8. someone told me they did this and i want to know what and how would the problems arrise? would they only show up if certain tuners where on the same channel or vice versa, etc.
You would most likely see inconsistent results based on what channels the various tuners were set to. In some cases, all might actually work while in other cases you would get searching for signal. It would be a combination of factors, including what channel as well as how many receivers are assigned a communication channel to talk to the SWM (to request a channel).
You may have mixed success, but you will also have many failures. If you happen to get one of your extra tuners to steal a signal from the SWM8 while another unit happens to be using OTA, when the box using OTA wants its tuner back, it will fail. You then run into multiple headaches trying to figure out what is wrong as issues will occur on random boxes.
Best to avoid doing this, for obvious reasons.
say-what
11-07-08, 09:31 PM
better to run 2 SWM's than to test fate
Draconis
11-07-08, 09:45 PM
better to run 2 SWM's than to test fate
That beings up a question I had a long time ago that was never answered.
If you put 2 SWM's on the same wireing system (both attached to the same splitter feeding the house) would they cooperate with each other or would they fight?
That beings up a question I had a long time ago that was never answered.
If you put 2 SWM's on the same wireing system (both attached to the same splitter feeding the house) would they cooperate with each other or would they fight?4 wires from dish to 4 splitters. 4 splitter to 2 swm's. outputs from swm's to up to 16 tuners. details in my setup (below) with part numbers. works great.
Draconis
11-07-08, 10:02 PM
4 wires from dish to 4 splitters. 4 splitter to 2 swm's. outputs from swm's to up to 16 tuners. details in my setup (below) with part numbers. works great.
Thanks.
thanks for replies, i was trying to explain that upon first glance walking between all receivers (5 HD-DVRs) that it might be ok. but that at some point in time to many tuners will calling for the same thing at the wrong time and bad things will happen.
Draconis you can use 4 high frequency 2 0r 4 way splitters to split signal from dish two the 2 or 4 SWM-8s or you can get one of the very nice SWM-E2 or E4 that houses all of the necessary splitters and they supply the power to each SWM via 1 central plugin power supply vs each swm having its own power inserter. i am using SWM-E2 and it is great.
texasbrit
11-07-08, 10:59 PM
Each tuner sends a request to the SWM for the SWM to put a particular transponder on an SWM channel. The SWM then puts that transponder signal on an SWM channel and sends a message back to the tuner to tell it which SWM channel to look at. On that basis, if you had more than eight tuners, you would expect the ninth tuner to have a problem as soon as it powers up. But that is not the way it works. If a tuner sends a request to the SWM for a transponder that is already on an SWM channel (because another tuner has already requested it) then the SWM tells the tuner to look for the signal on the SWM channel that is already carrying that transponder, it does not allocate a new one. So it is possible to have more than eight tuners attached to an SWM and working correctly, as long as they don't ask for more than eight transponders (I have tested this situation, as have several others). As soon as a tuner asks for a ninth transponder, that tuner will see a failure. I have not checked all the failure modes in a real situation but my guess is that the tuner requesting the ninth transponder will remain connected to the SWM channel it originally requested, so you will see either incorrect channels appearing or 771 messages.
hdtvfan0001
11-08-08, 03:51 AM
That beings up a question I had a long time ago that was never answered.
If you put 2 SWM's on the same wireing system (both attached to the same splitter feeding the house) would they cooperate with each other or would they fight?
I've been running an SWM8 and SWM5 in parallel, and they don't find, heck....they're friends. :D
4 wires from dish to 4 splitters. 4 splitter to 2 swm's. outputs from swm's to up to 16 tuners. details in my setup (below) with part numbers. works great.
Yup...very similar (successful) setup here too.
hdtvfan0001
11-08-08, 03:53 AM
That beings up a question I had a long time ago that was never answered.
If you put 2 SWM's on the same wireing system (both attached to the same splitter feeding the house) would they cooperate with each other or would they fight?
I've been running an SWM8 and SWM5 in parallel, and they don't find, heck....they're friends. :D
4 wires from dish to 4 splitters. 4 splitter to 2 swm's. outputs from swm's to up to 16 tuners. details in my setup (below) with part numbers. works great.
Yup...very similar (successful) setup here too.Each tuner sends a request to the SWM for the SWM to put a particular transponder on an SWM channel. The SWM then puts that transponder signal on an SWM channel and sends a message back to the tuner to tell it which SWM channel to look at. On that basis, if you had more than eight tuners, you would expect the ninth tuner to have a problem as soon as it powers up. But that is not the way it works.
Right....there have been numerous parallel SWM8 installs.
4 wires from dish to 4 splitters. 4 splitter to 2 swm's. outputs from swm's to up to 16 tuners. details in my setup (below) with part numbers. works great.
I didn't know you could do that! I've already got the WB68 switch installed so I won't need to, but it's nice to know it can be done.
crashHD
11-08-08, 10:34 AM
More than 8 tuners means at least 5 receivers. Chances are, at least one of those locations can be reached with two cables. If so...
Dish --(4 cables)--> 6x8Multiswitch --> (4 cables) -->(swm8)
Feed 8 tuners off the SWM, and 4 more of the 6x8.
Would this not work?
Would not the 6x8 MS be cheaper than another SWM + 4 HF splitters?
LameLefty
11-08-08, 10:45 AM
I didn't know you could do that! I've already got the WB68 switch installed so I won't need to, but it's nice to know it can be done.
You can also run an SWM8 in parallel with your existing WB68. ;)
veryoldschool
11-08-08, 11:11 AM
More than 8 tuners means at least 5 receivers. Chances are, at least one of those locations can be reached with two cables. If so...
Dish --(4 cables)--> 6x8Multiswitch --> (4 cables) -->(swm8)
Feed 8 tuners off the SWM, and 4 more of the 6x8.
Would this not work?
Would not the 6x8 MS be cheaper than another SWM + 4 HF splitters?
"better yet": run the WB68 & SWM8 in parallel with $12 worth of splitters.
crashHD
11-08-08, 12:42 PM
Wow. Where did you find good splitters that cheap?
veryoldschool
11-08-08, 12:50 PM
Wow. Where did you find good splitters that cheap?
http://www.a1components.com/itemdisplayn.aspx?item=4349
LameLefty
11-08-08, 12:58 PM
"better yet": run the WB68 & SWM8 in parallel with $12 worth of splitters.
Didn't I just say that, more or less? :lol:
veryoldschool
11-08-08, 01:01 PM
Didn't I just say that, more or less? :lol:
You didn't answer the "cheap" part. :)
BGreen965
11-08-08, 04:44 PM
I'm using the Satellite 2Ghz splitters that are at Home Depot for less than $10 without any problems.
jacmyoung
11-10-08, 09:03 PM
Based on the above explanation, is it correct to say if one needs more than 8 tuners, and has no problem with providing two runs for each HDDVR, there is no advantage upgrading from 2xWB68 to SMW8?
David MacLeod
11-10-08, 09:15 PM
keep in mind that this is ONLY an opinion, but I think my 6 tuners just plain work better on swm. seems to be better rain fade performance with no changes except wb616 swapped out with swm8. I don't have any hard data, its just the way all 3 dvrs seem to act better all around.
diplexing ota is nice too, even though it is unsupported.
Based on the above explanation, is it correct to say if one needs more than 8 tuners, and has no problem with providing two runs for each HDDVR, there is no advantage upgrading from 2xWB68 to SMW8?
The SWM is a powered multiswitch, while the WB68's are unpowered. That is some advantage, depending on coax lengths and possibly other factors.
Other than that, I can't particularly say one is preferable to another.
veryoldschool
11-10-08, 09:30 PM
Based on the above explanation, is it correct to say if one needs more than 8 tuners, and has no problem with providing two runs for each HDDVR, there is no advantage upgrading from 2xWB68 to SMW8?
If two WB68s are working for you [and cables aren't an issue], then I'd say you are correct.
The main "plus" of SWM is the single wire feed. There are some "minor" pluses as the SWM does power the LNBs [and is normally closer to the dish, so less voltage drop], and there is "some" gain in the RF as it converts the frequencies, which "could" help offset "some" rainfade.
I just moved, disconnected all but four hr20. Used movers connection, and installer came with a swmline 3. So I got to install and setup myself, love the single wire to all recievers. But anyway since I am using all eight available tuners, and I will eventually want to reactivate a reciever for my sons room, I asked the installer if I would have to install another dish. He said that he has been told in Feb. they are supposed to make it work with 16 tuners. Anybody see any truth to this info from the installer. Since they are going to use these new dishes all over it would make sense to me that they would since only 8 tuners on 1 dish seems too little.
He said that he has been told in Feb. they are supposed to make it work with 16 tuners. Anybody see any truth to this info from the installer.Been not a peep of any reference to a SWMLine with more then 8 tuners. There were rumors of a standalone SWM-11 well over a year ago but was explained as not happening.
There was info that the technology could support 12 tuners in theory: http://www.entropic-communications.com/products/dbs.htm
texasbrit
11-11-08, 06:30 AM
Been not a peep of any reference to a SWMLine with more then 8 tuners. There were rumors of a standalone SWM-11 well over a year ago but was explained as not happening.
There was info that the technology could support 12 tuners in theory: http://www.entropic-communications.com/products/dbs.htm
That's 11 tuners plus one channel carrying guide data (hence the earlier rumors about the SWM11).
SWM channel frequencies on the SWM8 (nine channels) are
1 - 974
2 - 1076
3 - 1178
4 - 1280
5 - 1382
6 - 1484
7 - 1586
8 - 1688
9 - 1790
To build an SWM16 (17 channels) you would need to go up to 2.5GHz, or down into the OTA band below 974MHz, or reduce the channel spacing. All of those could require new receivers/DVRs, unless DirecTV has already planned for that (the new H23/HR23 have wide-band receivers that go down into the OTA band (b-band) for example). Possible but I somehow think we would have heard rumors about it by now.
David MacLeod
11-11-08, 06:43 AM
], and there is "some" gain in the RF as it converts the frequencies, which "could" help offset "some" rainfade.
this is probably what I am seeing, not a huge difference but enough to be consistently noticeable.
rudeney
11-11-08, 12:22 PM
Been not a peep of any reference to a SWMLine with more then 8 tuners. There were rumors of a standalone SWM-11 well over a year ago but was explained as not happening.
There was info that the technology could support 12 tuners in theory: http://www.entropic-communications.com/products/dbs.htm
Theoretically, the system should be able to support 16 SWM channels. Keep in mind that the SWM is doing nothing more than "mixing and matching" data streams from different transponders. Since current non-SWM setups effectively handle the feeds from 16 transponders at a time on the cable, the SWM should be able to do that, too. Now, making that happen is another thing altogether. The existing receiver hardware may or may not be capable of the reprogramming necessary to do that.
rudeney
11-11-08, 12:25 PM
That beings up a question I had a long time ago that was never answered.
If you put 2 SWM's on the same wireing system (both attached to the same splitter feeding the house) would they cooperate with each other or would they fight?
Just to make sure this question was answered, you cannot combine the outputs from two SWM's onto the same cable. The SWM allocates 9 discrete 100MHz frequency bands for the 9 transponder streams (8 for tuners to select + 1 fixed for guide data) that it supplies. The two data streams in the same bands would get crossed, and you know what happens when you cross the streams...:)
veryoldschool
11-11-08, 12:28 PM
Theoretically, the system should be able to support 16 SWM channels. Keep in mind that the SWM is doing nothing more than "mixing and matching" data streams from different transponders. Since current non-SWM setups effectively handle the feeds from 16 transponders at a time on the cable, the SWM should be able to do that, too. Now, making that happen is another thing altogether. The existing receiver hardware may or may not be capable of the reprogramming necessary to do that.
I have to disagree because there isn't enough bandwidth. With the receiver's upper limit being 2150 MHz, this would only allow 3 more SWM channels [hence the idea of a 11 channel SWM that died before production]
LameLefty
11-11-08, 12:35 PM
I have to disagree because there isn't enough bandwidth. With the receiver's upper limit being 2150 MHz, this would only allow 3 more SWM channels [hence the idea of a 11 channel SWM that died before production]
And really, when you think about it in a practical sense rather than a "Gee whiz!" sense, an 8 tuner SWM is pretty close to ideal. I would bet a lot that 8 tuners is quite a bit more than most sub's have in their homes. It's also pretty easy to add more tuners with a few bucks in splitters and a few feet of coax by running another one in parallel.
RobertE
11-11-08, 02:01 PM
I have to disagree because there isn't enough bandwidth. With the receiver's upper limit being 2150 MHz, this would only allow 3 more SWM channels [hence the idea of a 11 channel SWM that died before production]
Unless they move down into the OTA band then it could possibly look something like this: (I think I did my spacing right, if not, you get the idea anyway :p )
Com - 2.3
A - 158
B - 260
C - 362
D - 464
E - 566
F - 668
G - 770
H - 872
1 - 974
2 - 1076
3 - 1178
4 - 1280
5 - 1382
6 - 1484
7 - 1586
8 - 1688
9 - 1790
The splitters are rated for it so no problem there. But can the tuners handle such a range in SWM mode?
I see two problems though with pushing down into the OTA range. The first being the show stopper. Ingress from real OTA transmissions. The second, less critical one (to me anyway) is that anyone that is diplexing anything would be screwed. But diplexing isn't supported, so cest la vie
veryoldschool
11-11-08, 02:20 PM
Unless they move down into the OTA band then it could possibly look something like this: (I think I did my spacing right, if not, you get the idea anyway :p )
The splitters are rated for it so no problem there. But can the tuners handle such a range in SWM mode?
I see two problems though with pushing down into the OTA range. The first being the show stopper. Ingress from real OTA transmissions. The second, less critical one (to me anyway) is that anyone that is diplexing anything would be screwed. But diplexing isn't supported, so cest la vie
Your "numbers" look correct. "This could be done", but it's a complete rework of what we have now. New hardware on both ends.
SDizzle
11-11-08, 02:34 PM
More than 8 tuners means at least 5 receivers. Chances are, at least one of those locations can be reached with two cables. If so...
Dish --(4 cables)--> 6x8Multiswitch --> (4 cables) -->(swm8)
Feed 8 tuners off the SWM, and 4 more of the 6x8.
Would this not work?
Would not the 6x8 MS be cheaper than another SWM + 4 HF splitters?
This is my setup exactly. With help from others here....dish to WB68...4 1 foot coaxes to SWM8....running 2 HR20s off of the WB68 with 2 coaxes each....4 HR21s off of SWM8....using all 8 tuners on SWM.
David MacLeod
11-11-08, 02:34 PM
The second, less critical one (to me anyway) is that anyone that is diplexing anything would be screwed. But diplexing isn't supported, so cest la vie
hey,hey,hey.... SHHHHH.... jeez :):):)
SDizzle
11-11-08, 02:37 PM
keep in mind that this is ONLY an opinion, but I think my 6 tuners just plain work better on swm. seems to be better rain fade performance with no changes except wb616 swapped out with swm8. I don't have any hard data, its just the way all 3 dvrs seem to act better all around.
diplexing ota is nice too, even though it is unsupported.
David.....I think I have to agree. I hooked up my SWM yesterday, and I swear the picture looked better on all 4 TVs that the SWM is running!! Maybe I'm not crazy?!?:confused:
LameLefty
11-11-08, 02:39 PM
This is my setup exactly. With help from others here....dish to WB68...4 1 foot coaxes to SWM8....running 2 HR20s off of the WB68 with 2 coaxes each....4 HR21s off of SWM8....using all 8 tuners on SWM.
If you'd hooked things up in parallel, you'd have 8 tuner "slots" on the SWM, plus still have all 8 ports of the WB68 and three SD-only legacy ports on the SWM too. ;)
veryoldschool
11-11-08, 02:55 PM
David.....I think I have to agree. I hooked up my SWM yesterday, and I swear the picture looked better on all 4 TVs that the SWM is running!! Maybe I'm not crazy?!?:confused:
Since the signal ends up being digital, I'm afraid your last statement is showing merit.
"Delayed" rainfade would be "it". PQ is the same "there or not". :)
David MacLeod
11-11-08, 03:03 PM
IIRC, I noticed channel changes were quicker too, but since there have been 3 software installs since that hookup time I can't be sure.
its not that there were huge differences, just a few minor ones that seemed to be an enhancement of overall performance.
rudeney
11-11-08, 03:23 PM
Unless they move down into the OTA band then it could possibly look something like this: (I think I did my spacing right, if not, you get the idea anyway :p )
Com - 2.3
A - 158
B - 260
C - 362
D - 464
E - 566
F - 668
G - 770
H - 872
1 - 974
2 - 1076
3 - 1178
4 - 1280
5 - 1382
6 - 1484
7 - 1586
8 - 1688
9 - 1790
The splitters are rated for it so no problem there. But can the tuners handle such a range in SWM mode?
I see two problems though with pushing down into the OTA range. The first being the show stopper. Ingress from real OTA transmissions. The second, less critical one (to me anyway) is that anyone that is diplexing anything would be screwed. But diplexing isn't supported, so cest la vie
That's along the lines that I was thinking. Plus there is technically room for a few more channels above 1790MHz.
hey,hey,hey.... SHHHHH.... jeez :):):)
I'm using the inherent OTA diplexer as well. With great results I must say!:D
texasbrit
11-11-08, 04:21 PM
Unless they move down into the OTA band then it could possibly look something like this: (I think I did my spacing right, if not, you get the idea anyway :p )
Com - 2.3
A - 158
B - 260
C - 362
D - 464
E - 566
F - 668
G - 770
H - 872
1 - 974
2 - 1076
3 - 1178
4 - 1280
5 - 1382
6 - 1484
7 - 1586
8 - 1688
9 - 1790
The splitters are rated for it so no problem there. But can the tuners handle such a range in SWM mode?
I see two problems though with pushing down into the OTA range. The first being the show stopper. Ingress from real OTA transmissions. The second, less critical one (to me anyway) is that anyone that is diplexing anything would be screwed. But diplexing isn't supported, so cest la vie
Yes, this is one of the options I suggested in my earlier post. The tuners in most of the receivers and DVRs won't handle this wide bandwidth (they can't handle the b-band signals without the converters). The ones in the H23 and HR23, being wideband to accept the b-band signals from DirecTV10 and 11, might be able to do that - I just don't know what the specs are.
Of course, it may be that they could simply reduce the channel separation for the SWM channels. I am not sure why they are so far apart, as I remember the D10/11 transponders are 40MHz wide so even with guard bands I am not sure why you need 102MHz spacing for the SWM channels.
The SWM-11 info suggested the two additional channels would be above 1790Mhz.
veryoldschool
11-11-08, 04:25 PM
Yes, this is one of the options I suggested in my earlier post. The tuners in most of the receivers and DVRs won't handle this wide bandwidth (they can't handle the b-band signals without the converters). The ones in the H23 and HR23, being wideband to accept the b-band signals from DirecTV10 and 11, might be able to do that - I just don't know what the specs are.
Of course, it may be that they could simply reduce the channel separation for the SWM channels. I am not sure why they are so far apart, as I remember the D10/11 transponders are 40MHz wide so even with guard bands I am not sure why you need 102MHz spacing for the SWM channels.
The SWM-11 info suggested the two additional channels would be above 1790Mhz.
SWM still needs to work with the Ku birds, so that may be "why"
"two additional" = three
RobertE
11-11-08, 04:58 PM
Yes, this is one of the options I suggested in my earlier post. The tuners in most of the receivers and DVRs won't handle this wide bandwidth (they can't handle the b-band signals without the converters). The ones in the H23 and HR23, being wideband to accept the b-band signals from DirecTV10 and 11, might be able to do that - I just don't know what the specs are.
Of course, it may be that they could simply reduce the channel separation for the SWM channels. I am not sure why they are so far apart, as I remember the D10/11 transponders are 40MHz wide so even with guard bands I am not sure why you need 102MHz spacing for the SWM channels.
The SWM-11 info suggested the two additional channels would be above 1790Mhz.
Keep in mind that the b-band and converting it is a non-issue, as all of that is done in the LNB.
The tuners would need to see the full spectrum from 2.3-2150 Mhz. Nothing more, nothing less.
My gut tells me its a concern about OTA ingress on the coax causing whackyness to ensue.
SDizzle
11-11-08, 05:51 PM
If you'd hooked things up in parallel, you'd have 8 tuner "slots" on the SWM, plus still have all 8 ports of the WB68 and three SD-only legacy ports on the SWM too. ;)
Yeah I know, but I knew I was maxed out on TV locations and this install would serve just fine as it addressed all 6 HDDVRs having 2 tuners each. Running in parallel was mentioned by a couple.....and it may have been you Lefty that mentioned that to me?!? But, no need to buy 4 splitters unnecessarily when I didn't need 4 more HD ports on the WB68.....and for me, the legacy ports on the SWM are useless......SD IS YUCKY:lol: :lol:
SDizzle
11-11-08, 05:53 PM
Since the signal ends up being digital, I'm afraid your last statement is showing merit.
"Delayed" rainfade would be "it". PQ is the same "there or not". :)
Darn:lol: :lol:
LameLefty
11-11-08, 05:56 PM
Yeah I know, but I knew I was maxed out on TV locations and this install would serve just fine as it addressed all 6 HDDVRs having 2 tuners each. Running in parallel was mentioned by a couple.....and it may have been you Lefty that mentioned that to me?!? But, no need to buy 4 splitters unnecessarily when I didn't need 4 more HD ports on the WB68.....and for me, the legacy ports on the SWM are useless......SD IS YUCKY:lol: :lol:
Yeah I hear you about SD. :p
Unfortunately, Mrs. Lefty believes laying out about $2500 - $3,000 for three new medium sized HDTVs to replace perfectly fine SDTVs, plus upgrade lease fees for new HDDVRs, is worse than yucky. :lol:
SDizzle
11-11-08, 05:58 PM
Yeah I hear you about SD. :p
Unfortunately, Mrs. Lefty believes laying out about $2500 - $3,000 for three new medium sized HDTVs to replace perfectly fine SDTVs, plus upgrade lease fees for new HDDVRs, is worse than yucky. :lol:
:lol: :lol: Luckily Mrs. Dizzle has no say so and doesn't care :lol: :lol:
texasbrit
11-11-08, 10:41 PM
Keep in mind that the b-band and converting it is a non-issue, as all of that is done in the LNB.
The tuners would need to see the full spectrum from 2.3-2150 Mhz. Nothing more, nothing less.
My gut tells me its a concern about OTA ingress on the coax causing whackyness to ensue.
Agree. The point I was making was that we know the tuners in the older DVRs and receivers are not wide-band which is why the BBCs were needed, to move the b-band signals up into the a-band space. The H23 and HR23 have tuners that have wider bandwidth to accommodate the b-band, which has as I remember an IF from 250-750MHz. This means it is likely that the H23 and HR23 would be capable of supporting an SWM stack plan for 16 channels, since they are already handling 250-2150 MHz.
The 2.3 Mhz signalling channel is I assume way out of band for the older DVRs and receivers and might probably be handled by a single-frequency tuner. Also its bandwidth only needs to be very small to accommodate the communication from the tuners to the SWM.
texasbrit
11-11-08, 10:44 PM
SWM still needs to work with the Ku birds, so that may be "why"
"two additional" = three
My math was never very good....
The Ku transponders only occupy 29Mhz so are narrower bandwidth than the Ka transponders......
br408408
11-12-08, 06:21 AM
That beings up a question I had a long time ago that was never answered.
If you put 2 SWM's on the same wireing system (both attached to the same splitter feeding the house) would they cooperate with each other or would they fight?
Are you talking about combining the outputs of the two SWM's on the same splitter?
In this case, I would think they would "fight" since they use the same channels (frequencies).
Yeah I hear you about SD. :p
Unfortunately, Mrs. Lefty believes laying out about $2500 - $3,000 for three new medium sized HDTVs to replace perfectly fine SDTVs, plus upgrade lease fees for new HDDVRs, is worse than yucky. :lol:
Just tell Mrs. Lefty that the SDTVs need some diet and excercise... :lol:
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.