Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Connected Home' started by veryoldschool, Jul 18, 2012.
Thanks. Do you think the 4splitters or the amp is a better solution?
There isn't an easy answer.
If you cascade, then the amp is it.
If you use splitters, the added loss isn't that great "and" is about the same as I've measured between different LNB's output power.
If I had an LNB with the output on the higher end, then I wouldn't care about the splitter loss.
If I had an LNB with the output on the lower end, then I "might" use the amp before the splitters.
Without a meter to measure the output power, it's hard to say which is better verses which is "good enough".
Thanks VOS. I am going to go with the AMP in between the legacy outs and the 2nd SWM16 in.
I have some long runs from the SWM16 so would rather get boost from the amp.
This worked out well for someone who cascaded -16s that were about 50' apart.
VOS, if you used the four splitter method for two SWMs, could you use two CCKs or DECAs and plug them both into a network switch. I'm wondering if that would avoid so much traffic through the router.
Ethernet switches "should" keep the traffic off of your home network, but not all switches are equal.
If the added loss of a splitter used to combine, wouldn't be a problem, then I'd go with the combining of the DECA RF signals, if it didn't push me over the 16 node limit.
I've seen the diagrams that you have graciously produced for more than 1 SWiM w/ DECA.
I have several HR20s including a HR20-100 all together in a room. They are split between 2 different SWiM 16s.
Instead of putting the 4 2way splitters on each 8 tuner leg of the dual SWiM 16s which then feed together in a 4 way splitter, what would be the disavantage of using 2 DECA Adapters, one on each SWiM 16 with the RG6 feeding the HR20s - but the ethernet plugged into a 8 year old 7 port Linksys Ethernet Switch I have sitting around doing nothing. Then just feed an ethernet connection to each of the HR20s.
This would bridge the DECA between the 2 SWiM 16s, alleviate all the splitters and wiring at the SWiM for the bridge and alleviate the need for 2 extra DECAs. Also take care of the finicky HR20-100 issue.
Does that make any sense - and if so, what is the downside?
It sort of makes sense. You're simply segmenting the DECA into smaller clouds and combining in ethernet.
Should do about the same as combining the RF, "but" you'll lose the system test function [in the 24/34s] that will test the whole network.
"As for working" should be the same.
May be a stupid question, but what does the 16 node limit mean? I currently have a SWIM 16, with 7 DVR's and 2 regular tuners, using all the 16 "ports", for lack of a better term. I may wish to expand in the future. I have whole home. What are the practical limits so that all sites can see each other in the whole home system?
We need to separate "tuners" from "nodes".
In your current setup, you have 16 tuners, and at least [7+2] nodes, but may have another node for the CCK [if you have one].
"Nodes" are each DECA.
"Practical limits" might be seen as the limit of the DECA RF signal between the farthest devices, which needs to have less than 45 dB of loss, or the networking starts to degrade.
If I have more than 16 tuners with 2 SWM16s and using unsupported Ethernet MRV, will all the playlists be combined or will they be split by swm16?
Also, which are the appropriate splitters to be used with 2 SWM16s?
I am reading the article VOS posted. Hopefully it will answer my questions. I would think the switches have to cascaded for all the DVRs to see one another. With splitters I assume it won't work that way.
Your unsupported ethernet has nothing to do with how many swims you have. All your ethernet connections to your DVRs will show up as one playlist.
Using the Skywalker splitters in the article puts the swims in parallel rather than cascaded.
Right. I now see that. If they are all hooked up via Ethernet they should all be able to see each other. I guess I will just get some splitters.
Is there any current work around for issue 1?
Installer was at my house for a receiver replacement and he advised that 12 DVR's/24 Tuners is the Max number of DVR's that can see each other, he also stated that by disconnecting all the recievers from multi switch and the re-connecting the first 12 DVR's you want to communicate with each other is a work around.....
What is the actual supported number 8-10, or 12?
The installer is incorrect, to my knowledge.
I have been told over and over, there is no limit to the actual number of devices, but only 8 will be seen. The number of tuners is irrelevant; if all 8 were Genies, they would still see each other.
Also it's not "the first 8" it's more of a random grouping of 8 out of the total that you have.
I agree on the number of devices being limitless as I have 15, its just how many can be grouped together and how to set up a group that has me puzzled....
With having 13 networked HD boxes on my system (11 of which are DVRs) I can say with absolute certainty that the maximum number of servers that can be seen by the system is 10.
The 10 DVRs are acquired by random and cannot be manipulated or adjusted by resetting the boxes in a particular order.
This has been confirmed by other members here with more than 10 DVRs on their system.
Put receivers on the same splitter and put a band stop filter between the splitter and the swm.