Is SWM worth it if cable runs are not a problem?

[jhill3264]

I need to relocate my 3LNB 18 x 20 dish due to trees growing. I knew this would eventually happen as the current dish is only about 6ft of the ground.

I pre-wired my house (2 story plus full basement) when it was built with 2 RG6 from each bedroom home run to a wiring closet in the basement. I've got the 4 RG6 cables from the current dish running through the basement rim joist, in the joist cavity, right to the wiring closet. With the angle of the house on the lot and all, I've been able to get by for many years with being able to shoot right between the two maple trees in the backyard. But as those tree grow (wider and taller), that gap gets smaller and smaller. We are now starting to get intermittent signal loss, sometimes just blips all the way to searching for satellite... when the wind blows. And of course, rain fade.

I'm considering mounting it on the roof or possibly under the eave to get it as high as possible. Unfortunately, with a 2 story house and walkout basement on the south side that's over 30 feet up.:eek2:

So now to the SWM question. I want to avoid having 4 cables running all the way down the house to the current cable entry. I could probably "borrow" one of the cables from a 2nd story bedroom in the attic and using SWM have a single run go to the wiring closet in the basement. However, with a little more work I think I could still run 4 new cables from the attic to the basement. Although it would be nice to "free up" one of the cables running to our DVRs to use for OTA, I realize SWM is also limited to certain receivers and seems to add a bit more equipment for setup and self-install.

We currently have:
R22 (SWM ok) and DirecTivo (SWM not OK). We are looking to add an HR23 (SWM ok) and it would not kill us to lose the DirecTivo (second tuner died). We had HD way back before you had to pay extra with a DTC100, but we use it for OTA only (no DTV service).

I plan to do self-install and buy the receivers myself. I also plan to start with the new SlimLine Dish with 3 or 5 LNB so I can add HD locals.

So is there really any other benefit (or drawback) to SWM? It's a neat technology and I applaud DirecTV for simplifying the wiring, but are the limitations (and extra details) worth it in my case?

Thanks for your thoughts,
Jim

[veryoldschool]

"Tough call".
Coax is cheap.
SWM has an AGC output which can offset some rainfade, and if networking is a problem, it could allow the use of some newer type equipment, but that's about all.

[ndole]

If a 4 cable run from the ODU on the roof is feasible, it will be much cheaper to stick with standard equipment. However if cost isn't a barrier, you would have the 2nd cable run to the wiring closet available for OTA, mirrors etc.

[dishrich]

Personally, I would prefer to stick with legacy, due to needing that power inserter on the SWM dish. Particularly since I use UPS's on ALL my receivers, you also need to put the inserter on it as well, which reduces the run time of the UPS.
Also, I DO have some legacy receivers on the dish, which I do NOT want to change.
If something happens to the LNB, (power surge, lightning, etc) obviously the SWM is more expensive to replace than legacy. (I do ALL my own dish work, but if you have D* do it under prot plan, a moot point)

[veryoldschool]

Personally, I would prefer to stick with legacy, due to needing that power inserter on the SWM dish. Particularly since I use UPS's on ALL my receivers, you also need to put the inserter on it as well, which reduces the run time of the UPS.
Also, I DO have some legacy receivers on the dish, which I do NOT want to change.
If something happens to the LNB, (power surge, lightning, etc) obviously the SWM is more expensive to replace than legacy. (I do ALL my own dish work, but if you have D* do it under prot plan, a moot point)
You have a "fair point", and I'd just "add" that the SWM PI [power] would be offset by the receivers as they no longer need to drive the LNB/multi-switch. Watt meter readings seem to suggest you're just moving the draw to another device.

[MikeW]

You do add the ability to diplex signals when using a SWM system.

I'm not familiar with the SWM LNB setup. I wonder if this would be a better solution for this situation? Would this use one cable for the signal and one for the power inserter or is it a single wire down to the distribution area?

[veryoldschool]

You do add the ability to diplex signals when using a SWM system.

I'm not familiar with the SWM LNB setup. I wonder if this would be a better solution for this situation? Would this use one cable for the signal and one for the power inserter or is it a single wire down to the distribution area?
Diplexing is on the way out.
The PI connects to the SWM [8 or LNB] with the same coax.

[MikeW]

Diplexing is on the way out.
The PI connects to the SWM [8 or LNB] with the same coax.

Only with the upcoming network solution????right??? I currently have OTA diplexed and a hardwired network so I"m OK (I hope).

[rudeney]

I say go with the SWM. Even if you have the coax (or aren't opposed to running more) for two tuners, I believe the SWM system just works better. I've had far fewer problems (really, none) with 771's and blank recordings since I switched to my SWM8. Also, you can get rid of those annoying BBC's, and you can use any extra coax feeds for OTA.

[ndole]

Can you [Actually, not policy-wise] Diplex with SWiM signals?
I never thought to take the time and try it.

[MikeW]

Can you [Actually, not policy-wise] Diplex with SWiM signals?
I never thought to take the time and try it.

Yes, you can. The SWM-8 actually has a port on it for the OTA input. You need one diplexor at the other end to "un-split" the signal.

I run a SWM-5 and SWM-8 for my setup. The diplexed signal from the SWM-8 is not allowing me to receive a signal from one (the only one in town) VHF signal. The SWM-5, which requires two diplexors gets the signal at 90% strength. It may be an issue with the SWM-8, but I'm not concerned because that channel is already available via sat.

[ndole]

Very interesting stuff!
I'll have to play with this at home a bit.

[veryoldschool]

Yes, you can. The SWM-8 actually has a port on it for the OTA input. You need one diplexor at the other end to "un-split" the signal.

I run a SWM-5 and SWM-8 for my setup. The diplexed signal from the SWM-8 is not allowing me to receive a signal from one (the only one in town) VHF signal. The SWM-5, which requires two diplexors gets the signal at 90% strength. It may be an issue with the SWM-8, but I'm not concerned because that channel is already available via sat.
The diplexer in the SWM8 is known to be lossy.

[Shades228]

Only with the upcoming network solution????right??? I currently have OTA diplexed and a hardwired network so I"m OK (I hope).

I would say it would be safe to say that it's very likely that newer generation equipment will have the netoworking built in and it's always possible with a firmware update that the SWM's out there could start reserving that frequency as well.

If you require OTA I'd start prepping something in case this happens. Better to have more then to have it go dark one day.

[veryoldschool]

I would say it would be safe to say that it's very likely that newer generation equipment will have the netoworking built in and it's always possible with a firmware update that the SWM's out there could start reserving that frequency as well.

If you require OTA I'd start prepping something in case this happens. Better to have more then to have it go dark one day.
I'm all in favor of getting people to move away from diplexing, "but" little will change in the SWM, other than having a filter added.

[dettxw]

The diplexer in the SWM8 is known to be lossy.Ain't that the truth.

Do we know if we get anything for that extra loss vs. using external diplexers? Maybe better isolation?

Guess it's becoming a moot point anyway what with the DECA using the frequencies and D* adding HD LiLs (got my PBS & CW this week :D ).
(and can usually run a separate cox for OTA too)

[Mike Bertelson]

IMHO, yes. I went from being limited to four tuners to eight without having to run anything at all. I have the SWM-LNB so I didn't even have to mess with finding a location for it. :)

YMMV. ;)

Mike

[zkc16]

Guess it's becoming a moot point anyway what with the DECA using the frequencies and D* adding HD LiLs (got my PBS & CW this week :D ).
(and can usually run a separate cox for OTA too)

It's not such a moot point for those who wish to have guide-integrated sub channels, networked programming via hardwire, and, for whatever reason, do not have the ability to run a second coax line.

[jhill3264]

I would say it would be safe to say that it's very likely that newer generation equipment will have the netoworking built in and it's always possible with a firmware update that the SWM's out there could start reserving that frequency as well.

If you require OTA I'd start prepping something in case this happens. Better to have more then to have it go dark one day.

Ahh, now that's what I was wondering about. Since it's obvious that there is some communication going on between receivers using the "shared" wire, I wondered if there might be some feature down the road that the SWM "network" would allow. If I go with SWM, i'll be freeing up wire so I probably wouldn't even bother with diplexing the OTA. Also, if I go SWM, I'll probably use the LNB-SWM which does not support diplexing anyway.

If I don't go with SWM, I plan to use a 6x8 multiswitch, so either way I get the advantage of 8 tuners.

For self-install how important are the extra installation items the ASL-1 and the SIM01 required by SWM? Since I'm probably going to be hanging at the top of a 30 foot ladder, I've already decided I'd get a signal meter (ACUTRACPRO) for aiming the dish. Do I really need the additional $100 in SWM tools to get things right? Again, this makes me wonder if SWM is worth the extra hassle?

[dettxw]

Guess it's becoming a moot point anyway what with the DECA using the frequencies and D* adding HD LiLs (got my PBS & CW this week :D ).

It's not such a moot point for those who wish to have guide-integrated sub channels, networked programming via hardwire, and, for whatever reason, do not have the ability to run a second coax line.That's why I modified my statement with the word "becoming".
We're not there yet. :)
I guess there a are a few markets with LiL subchannels, but I don't expect mine any time soon.

[mcbeevee]

I want to avoid having 4 cables running all the way down the house to the current cable entry. It would be nice to "free up" one of the cables running to our DVRs to use for OTA.

I converted my dish lnb to an SWM LNB just for these 2 reasons. One cable from the dish to the house entry point looks much nicer than the 4 cables -> WB68 -> 6 cables I had before. There are usually some good deals on SWM LNB's on e-bay.

:)

[Bill Broderick]

What is the likelihood that you will ever want more than 8 tuners? A friend of mine had DirecTV installed with 5 tuners (1 HD DVR, 2 HD receivers 1 SD receiver). Subesquently, they decided to move the HD receiver in their bedroom down to a TV in the basement and replace it with an HD DVR, which brought them to 7 tuners.

This past summer, they built a pool house that they wanted to put an HD DVR into. But, since they didn't want to install an additional dish, they were limited to an HD receiver.

At this point, they are at their limit. So upgrading any of the existing receivers to DVR's is not a possibility.

If there is any chance that you would want more than 8 tuners, and don't have a problem with multiple lines to each location, I would stick with a standard Slimline.

[rudeney]

If there is any chance that you would want more than 8 tuners, and don't have a problem with multiple lines to each location, I would stick with a standard Slimline.

Or, since we're talking custom install anyhow, use a SWM8 instead of a SWM-LNB dish. This gives you the flexibility of running more SWM8's or WB68's in parallel and overcoming the 8-tuner limit.

[ndole]

Or, since we're talking custom install anyhow, use a SWM8 instead of a SWM-LNB dish. This gives you the flexibility of running more SWM8's or WB68's in parallel and overcoming the 8-tuner limit.

I'm very excited to see just what's coming down the pipe with SWiM.
The possibilities are only limited by the current generation of receivers. But even then there are any number of workarounds.
[posing for instance] SWiM's 9th control channel already shares a phone connection from 1 IRD to give all the others PPV functionality. Couldn't the 9th channel be rigged to share an(at least moderate bandwidth) Internet connection? MRV? etc?

[veryoldschool]

I'm very excited to see just what's coming down the pipe with SWiM.
The possibilities are only limited by the current generation of receivers. But even then there are any number of workarounds.
[posing for instance] SWiM's 9th control channel already shares a phone connection from 1 IRD to give all the others PPV functionality. Couldn't the 9th channel be rigged to share an(at least moderate bandwidth) Internet connection? MRV? etc?
I think you're mixing things up here.
The "ninth channel" is for the guide info.
The 2.3 MHz "comm" frequency is what is "sharing" and at that frequency, not much can be shared.

[cartrivision]

I'm very excited to see just what's coming down the pipe with SWiM.
The possibilities are only limited by the current generation of receivers. But even then there are any number of workarounds.
[posing for instance] SWiM's 9th control channel already shares a phone connection from 1 IRD to give all the others PPV functionality. Couldn't the 9th channel be rigged to share an(at least moderate bandwidth) Internet connection? MRV? etc?

No, not any SWM channel, but the frequency range that is unused in an SWM system is going to be used for such an internet connection in order to provide network connectivity for MRV and on demand programming via the same coax that provides the SWM connection. You should be seeing DirecTV providing that type of networking capability "soon".

[confortif]

As I dig through this treasure-trove of SWM (over two hours of searchin) stuff and the new internet over cable, I'm still still wondering if the conventional four cable dish to to two cable HD-DVRs needs to be replaced if I already have it in place AND high speed internet connections to all of my receivers (already isolated from my general internet computer connections.) If not the question becomes should I just sit tight until something "hot" comes along that compels me to move forward on SWM? Wiring is not an issue as I have full multi-cable access to all of my TVs (most HD, some SD.)

Sorry if this is too basic a question but sometimes converting just for the sake of it doesn't necessarily make sense to me.

[veryoldschool]

As I dig through this treasure-trove of SWM (over two hours of searchin) stuff and the new internet over cable, I'm still still wondering if the conventional four cable dish to to two cable HD-DVRs needs to be replaced if I already have it in place AND high speed internet connections to all of my receivers (already isolated from my general internet computer connections.) If not the question becomes should I just sit tight until something "hot" comes along that compels me to move forward on SWM? Wiring is not an issue as I have full multi-cable access to all of my TVs (most HD, some SD.)

Sorry if this is too basic a question but sometimes converting just for the sake of it doesn't necessarily make sense to me.
I'd say if you've got all the coax and networking setup now, that you're set.
The only other thing that SWM might do for you is help "a bit" in bad weather to fight off rainfade. It's not a "cure all", but it will kick in another 15 dB of gain as the signal fades, so it may help.

[dsw2112]

As I dig through this treasure-trove of SWM (over two hours of searchin) stuff and the new internet over cable, I'm still still wondering if the conventional four cable dish to to two cable HD-DVRs needs to be replaced if I already have it in place AND high speed internet connections to all of my receivers (already isolated from my general internet computer connections.) If not the question becomes should I just sit tight until something "hot" comes along that compels me to move forward on SWM? Wiring is not an issue as I have full multi-cable access to all of my TVs (most HD, some SD.)

Sorry if this is too basic a question but sometimes converting just for the sake of it doesn't necessarily make sense to me.

If everything is working correctly and you're already hard-wired for LAN there's no "need" to switch to SWM. New receivers will likely be compatible with Legacy setups for quite a while!

[David MacLeod]

if you have all runs, switching to swm allows placing another unit(within tuner limits) in that area using the existing runs.
I switch to swm for this very reason, adding another run to 2 locations was a pita, moving to swm allowed me to add receiver w/o running cable.

[Herdfan]

So is there really any other benefit (or drawback) to SWM? It's a neat technology and I applaud DirecTV for simplifying the wiring, but are the limitations (and extra details) worth it in my case?

There may be future applications that will use a SWM. These may be really cool and will use your DVR's to their fullest capacity. (Can't say it in this forum, but there is a forum here where it is discussed);)