# HR20-700 / MPEG4 / MDU Installation thread



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
Our building is in the process of getting an estimate for an MDU installation by a D* MDU installer. This will be a new system installed from scratch with no reuse of existing wiring of any kind. Since we are in the LA market, I am hoping that we can get an MDU system installed that will support the new MPEG-4 standard that will be somewhat future proof. Ideally this system would also support individuals that would like to use the new HR20-700 for their HD recording.

Since there are a lot of MDU D* customers, I thought that I would start up a new thread since information concerning MDU's is pretty scattered and sparse.

I did find one tasty nougat right here:
www (dot) dbstalk (dot) com/showthread.php?p=640201&highlight=MDU#post640201

Apparently at least one company has designed a system that distributes the MPEG-4 video in an MDU. I have a PM into Robert to find out which company it is that was referenced in his post. Will update this thread when I hear back from him, and also will keep you all updated on anything that I find out regarding our buildings installation status.

Feel free to ask me questions if you have any too.

Robert


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rmnowick said:


> All,
> Our building is in the process of getting an estimate for an MDU installation by a D* MDU installer. This will be a new system installed from scratch with no reuse of existing wiring of any kind. Since we are in the LA market, I am hoping that we can get an MDU system installed that will support the new MPEG-4 standard that will be somewhat future proof. Ideally this system would also support individuals that would like to use the new HR20-700 for their HD recording.
> 
> Since there are a lot of MDU D* customers, I thought that I would start up a new thread since information concerning MDU's is pretty scattered and sparse.
> ...


Yea...just out of curiosity I'd like to see any responses myself to the technical details of such an MDU installation that would include the new MPEG4 Ka band signals. Does a signal stacker even exists that can stack the two-three LNB downblock bands?. And if so, given that the standard RG-6 sat. cable is already heavily taxed with carrying the three bands from the AT-9 dish, is the bandwidth of the coax large enough without the need for a number of broadband signal amplifiers (assuming they exists as well) to carry six 500MHz blocks over a sufficiently long distance to make the cabling of a reasonably sized MDU attainable?.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Well, forward progress has been made today. The MDU installer sent a crew out to do a site survey of the property. They looked throught the basement where the cables and conduit will be located, and also looked into several units to see how the wiring is taken up the individual stacks (3 units per stack). They will be speaking with their electronics designer in the morning, and he will then give us a call. We are preparing a list of questions to ask once the technical person gets back to us.

Concerning the first post, I still haven't heard back from Robert. I may try calling him at VE prior to talking to the MDU installer just in case the MDU installer doesn't have a viable solution. Not sure if the MDU companies share information with each other concerning system designs or not.

Robert


----------



## Budget_HT (Jun 4, 2003)

rnowicki,

You may want to contact DirecTV themselves for advice if you have not already.

They are supposed to have a "single" wire solution coming soon. It may be worth waiting for as it should simplify the installation and cut costs considerably (my guess on costs).

There is a DirecTV web site that might help.

Go to http://www.directv.com and then click on "MDU" in the upper right-hand corner of their home page.

I would hate to see you acquire a complicated multi-wire system just before the simpler solution becomes available.

I wish I knew more details, but I don't.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Budget_HT said:


> rnowicki,
> 
> You may want to contact DirecTV themselves for advice if you have not already.
> 
> ...


Dave,
Yes, that is a great idea. I will call the 888 number and see what they have to say. I'm assuming you're referring to FTM (Frequency Translation Module) as the single wire solution. Lower cost would definitely be good, but the wiring savings might end up resulting in higher electronics costs. These do drop pretty quickly though, so whose to know.

The last time I called DirecTv concerning MDU issues was probably about a year ago. If I recall correctly, they gave me the name of two companies, which they referred to as MSO's (Master System Operators ?). I called one of these up, Pace I believe it was, and they referred me to a couple local companies. One of these are the guys that came out today.

The feeling I had at the time was that D* set this up so they wouldn't have to deal with the myriad issues that arise with MDU's. They just throw the ball over the fence and the small MDU installers take it from there. They then get a cut of the customers bills that the customers pay to D*. Now that I think about it, this is probably why I didn't start down that path from the beginning, instead choosing to take the shortcut through the woods and join the trail down a ways 

Robert


----------



## bpayne (Oct 25, 2004)

rmnowick said:


> All,
> Our building is in the process of getting an estimate for an MDU installation by a D* MDU installer. This will be a new system installed from scratch with no reuse of existing wiring of any kind. Since we are in the LA market, I am hoping that we can get an MDU system installed that will support the new MPEG-4 standard that will be somewhat future proof. Ideally this system would also support individuals that would like to use the new HR20-700 for their HD recording.
> 
> Since there are a lot of MDU D* customers, I thought that I would start up a new thread since information concerning MDU's is pretty scattered and sparse.
> ...


 The MDU distro system that would probably be put in is centered around a stacking hub MFH-1. It is a specially designed MDU distro unit that is designed to interface with the FTM when it becomes available but for the interim will only distribute signals from 101, 110, 119.

So yes, the bad news is- it won't currently do Mpeg-4 signals in its current form. However, the good news is that when the FTM does come out, this is the first application it would be used for. Another nifty trick is that when the FTM is hooked up to this system, no changes have to be made to the CPE (cust. premise equipment). You plug in the FTM module at each hub, swap one cable and the work is done.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

bpayne said:


> The MDU distro system that would probably be put in is centered around a stacking hub MFH-1. It is a specially designed MDU distro unit that is designed to interface with the FTM when it becomes available but for the interim will only distribute signals from 101, 110, 119.
> 
> So yes, the bad news is- it won't currently do Mpeg-4 signals in its current form. However, the good news is that when the FTM does come out, this is the first application it would be used for. Another nifty trick is that when the FTM is hooked up to this system, no changes have to be made to the CPE (cust. premise equipment). You plug in the FTM module at each hub, swap one cable and the work is done.


Well, this is good news. It sounds like the system can be installed now as you describe, and when the FTM hardware is ready it can easily be upgraded to send the mpeg-4 signals. I Google'd "MFH-1" and came up with the following as the first hit from the Pace website:

www dot pacemso dot com/sky/Aug06/MFH1/?RefSalesSrc=6003&Referrer=SkyMFH1Sys


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rmnowick said:


> Well, this is good news. It sounds like the system can be installed now as you describe, and when the FTM hardware is ready it can easily be upgraded to send the mpeg-4 signals.


A couple of things to add to your prayer list:

1. That they don't turn off MPEG2 locals before FTM is delivered.
2. That FTM includes OTA (for digital subchannels, if not locals)

Given what is publicly known about FTM (nothing outside of what it stands for), the timing is not good for a plant rebuild.


----------



## Budget_HT (Jun 4, 2003)

You need to clearly state your need for parallel OTA antenna distribution, espcially since it may not be able to be diplexed with the satellite signals in the new architecture.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

I just spoke briefly with the MDU engineer. He confirmed that they do use the MFH-1 and the electronics from Pace, as I suspected. I e-mailed him a document that contains our list of must-haves and wants and he will be getting back to me. I spoke to him about several of the concerns mentioned above...

bpayne: You hit it right on with the MFH-1 comment. The engineer seemed to think that they could currently provide everything, including the MPEG-4 signals, over the system. I mentioned your concern and he will check with Pace tomorrow.

Budget_HT: The must-have list includes OTA, and the support of the HR20-700. It is worded such that it is ok if MPEG-4 is not supported right now, but that the system can be easily upgraded to it (i.e. no additional stack wiring) in the near term future. I asked specifically if they would be able to support OTA over the 1 wire solution, and MPEG-4, and he said that he would also have to check on this. Only clue he provided was that the system did have a bandwidth (?) of 3GHz. I'm not an RF engineer so I don't know what the implications of this are.

harsh: I'm not as familiar with the DirecTv plans as you might be, so I'm not clear if this presents a problem to us or not. This is regarding the turning off of MPEG-2 locals before FTM is delivered. This is a valid concern because if I read this correctly, the problem would be that our SD locals might go away before the FTM can deliver MPEG-4 HD locals? I would think that DirecTv would do what it can to not have this happen, but if we also have OTA capability then a short gap will not be a deal breaker.

Harsh: Concerning the FTM including OTA. Yes, this will be added to our laundry list of things we want. OTA is already there, but we should state that we want OTA even if the system eventually uses FTM. Also a good catch on the digital sub-channels. When the hr20-700 starts using the OTA signals, will it also have all the digital sub-channels available? I haven't seen much speculation on that subject.

Robert


----------



## Budget_HT (Jun 4, 2003)

Some points of clarification (correct me anyone if I am wrong here):

DirecTV has no announced plans to change any SD channels from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4, nor will they be dropping SD locals when HD MPEG-4 locals become available. They will eventualling be dropping HD MPEG-2 locals, but not until they have transitioned their subscribers of the HD MPEG-2 locals throughout the U.S.

If the HR10-250 and all other DirecTV HD STBs are any indication, all OTA "main" and subchannels will likely be available OTA on the HR20 when the OTA tuners are activated.


----------



## darrin1471 (Aug 18, 2006)

There is a second company called Pace who make MDU equipment. This company based in the UK with a US office has just supplied DirecTV with the HR20.
You may like to look at Pace’s website. www dot Pace.co.uk
Under products look up “multidweller”. The multidweller is not available yet but uses existing coax cable for HDTV, VOD, VoIP, high speed internet and PVR functionality. The following quotes come from a press release dated 8th September:
Pace MultiDweller has been designed to solve the problems operators face in delivering advanced digital TV and related services to multi-dwelling units (MDUs). Instead of taking on the (often prohibitive) cost of upgrading existing infrastructures and installing new wiring that is capable of relaying the required amount of digital data, Pace MultiDweller uses open standard protocols to maximise the use of the existing coax infrastructure in a building. 
By making efficient use of the bandwidth available, and having the right technology to manage the problems inherent in legacy systems, Pace MultiDweller then allows satellite, cable and IPTV operators to provide an entire suite of advanced digital services, including HDTV, VOD, VoIP, high speed internet and PVR functionality, as well as locally inserted services such as security cameras, to their customers.
Each client can use either a standard QAM cable set-top box client, or a small adapter which allows a satellite operator`s standard QPSK set-top box to be used. Both options come with integrated Ethernet ports for broadband provision. 
Pace MultiDweller can take transport streams from multiple sources - including cable, satellite, terrestrial or IP (or any combination) - which can then be distributed to its clients throughout the building.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Darrin,
Pace is the company that will be supplying the electronics for our sysytem. I don't believe the system that your quote discusses is one that we will be using, because we are having a new system installed, including all new wiring.

Since a picture is worth 1,000 words, here is what I found on the Pace site when I searched for MFH-1.

Robert


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Ok,
I received a follow up call from DirecTv. This was somewhat productive. I chatted with Kim for about 10 minutes and found out that things work a bit differently than they did up till about a year ago. My previous impression was correct, they used to just refer MDU issues to the MSO's who then passed you along to a local MDU installer. Apparently this wasn't working out very well, and D* now is playing a much more active roll in referring customers to the MDU installers directly.

I mentioned the name of our MDU installer who I have been working with, and she said that this was a very reliable company that has done many installations that they highly recommend. I asked some of the same technical questions that I forwarded to the MDU installer, like whether the current 1-wire solution would support distribution of the ATSC OTA signals over the same wire, and I got a "deer in the headlights" response as she didn't know what ATSC OTA was. I guess this is not totally unexpected as her job is handling D* MDU inquiries not OTA questions.

In any case, I also asked her about how the service would work when it was installed and up and running. The example I gave her was that on my current D* installation/account, I can go to the D* website and add or delete service (HBO, Showtime, etc.) as I want. I wanted to know if the same would hold true after the MDU install was in, or would I need to go through the MDU company for all requests of this type. She indicated that I would need to go through the MDU company! This is somewhat disappointing, as it would certainly be better to deal directly with D* and not have a middleman, but I can see the reasoning. The MDU comapany installs a HW solution that could be different from site to site. There is probably no way that D* would be able to keep track of what each specific MDU installation is capable of providing in terms of services. So, D* just lets the MDU company handle it all.

Still waiting to hear back from the MDU engineer. It has been 2 days so I will give him a ring and see what they have to say.

Robert


----------



## danielb6752 (Sep 9, 2006)

rmnowick,

I'm very interested in what you learn. My parents' building is considering a MDU system with the single cable deal, from www.nasproducts.com these guys told me it is THE system that DTV will be installing going forward, that they are chicago's biggest installer, and that it supports Ka-band... but on the site there's NO mention of Ka, only the 95 / 72.5 sats that are used for sd locals in some markets.

One of the reasons I don't think the national antenna mdu system will work is that all its satellite inputsare 950 mhz +, they stack OTA under that on the output and translate the satellite signals from 950 - 3500. if that's the case on the input side, how do they get all the stacked signals in off the dish?


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

All reports suggest MFH-1 system is upgradeable to KA reception

Doctor j


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

See these reports to gain a bit of insite into future
? KA requires 4X2.5 GHz stacking 
this is in line with D* triple bandwith by KA.

References:

www.foxcom.com/satlight/Design for Garden Style MDU-Feb 22 2006.pdf

www.foxcom.com/satlight/L-Band DBS_over FO_SAT EXPO 2006.pdf

Doctor j


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
More progress to report. The MDU installer is coming to do a second inspection. Apparently quite a bit of the cost of the install is due to running all new "home run wiring" up our 17 stacks. They want to see how the current cable wiring is run before they commit to a firm price. I'm thinking they will do the same kind of install, which runs the wires up the wall of the utility rooms, tucked into the corner. To get into the living room is then a simple matter of punching the single cable through one wall.

I also inquired about whether the system could meet our technical requirements. I asked about this because several posters expressed doubts above concerning the one wire solution being able to provide signals from all 5 satellites, in addition to OTA-ATSC signals. He informed me that he spoke with Pace, and they would be able to do that  

Now, since I'm not an RF engineer by trade, I'll post the list of requirements here. So that anyone who is more familiar with the single wire solution can also verify that it can do all that we are looking for it to do...

Technical Requirements:

Item #2: The installed system should at all times be capable of distributing both the NTSC and ATSC signals being broadcast over the air. There are many residents in the building who rely on OTA signals as their primary means of TV viewing and we wish to maintain this capability both before and after the 2009 NTSC cutoff. In the case that our contract with you is terminated for whatever reason, we would like the electronics within your distribution boxes to still supply and distribute the OTA signals.

Item #3: We understand that DirecTv is currently switching over to a Ka band based distribution system using MPEG-4 compression. We would like the system to support the new satellites and any and all stations being broadcast including LIL-HD channels, PPV channels, and all NFL season ticket channels including the HD ones. If it is not possible to provide this initially, then the system will need to be easily upgraded to support this capability in the near future.

Item #4: If at all possible, there should only be a single, 18 gauge, solid copper core, RG-6 cable going up to each unit. In cases where an individual unit requires more than one receiver, the electronics required to support the additional receiver(s) should all be located within the unit. Issues related to how many receivers can be installed in a unit, who pays for the electronics, and who pays for the STB’s are are TBD.

Item #5: In general, we would like the installed MDU system to be able to provide any programming that an individual homeowner would be able to access.

Item #6: We would also like the ability to support the same hardware that might be available to a homeowner. Specifically, the system should support the new HR20-700, including it’s OTA capability.

If anyone sees a problem with a system being able to do any of this please let me know. I can have them pass along the concerns / questions to Pace for confirmation.

Robert


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rmnowick said:


> Item #4: If at all possible, there should only be a single, 18 gauge, solid copper core, RG-6 cable going up to each unit. In cases where an individual unit requires more than one receiver, the electronics required to support the additional receiver(s) should all be located within the unit.


This is going to be interesting. From Earl's HR20 pictures, we know that the OTA tuners aren't connected to the SAT input(s). Given that the HR20 is the only off-the-shelf receiver suspected to support a single wire solution and it is unknown if FTM excludes space for diplexing VHF and UHF, you should get a wealth of information from the answer.


> Item #6: We would also like the ability to support the same hardware that might be available to a homeowner. Specifically, the system should support the new HR20-700, including it's OTA capability.


This is going to be a tall order. What you're asking for in a single cable solution seems to me like asking for hot and cold water to be delivered to the unit through a single PVC pipe and further, that standard faucets be able to divide the water appropriately.

Understand that what you're asking for is unconditional access to more than 500 channels of material over a single cable using the same equipment that someone with access to a dedicated dish and five cables coming in might use. I think is quite reasonable to expect a large subset of the services, but probably not the whole boatload.


----------



## matto (Sep 1, 2006)

harsh said:


> This is going to be interesting. From Earl's HR20 pictures, we know that the OTA tuners aren't connected to the SAT input(s). Given that the HR20 is the only off-the-shelf receiver suspected to support a single wire solution and it is unknown if FTM excludes space for diplexing VHF and UHF, you should get a wealth of information from the answer.This is going to be a tall order. What you're asking for in a single cable solution seems to me like asking for hot and cold water to be delivered to the unit through a single PVC pipe and further, that standard faucets be able to divide the water appropriately.


I agree. I'd be surprised to find out that you could accomplish this even with the FTM.
I think the closest you'll come is a patch panel on each floor where you could select either D* or OTA. You aren't going to be able to deliver both over a single line to each unit.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
The MDU guys just did another walkthrough of the building. This time they brought along their electronics guy. After I raised the concerns expressed here we again discussed what wires would actually be run. They indicated that as part of their installation, they always run 2 wires to each unit in order to future proof themselves since the wire itself is not the major cost item. So basically, we are looking at 6 wires per 3 unit stack coming up through a 2" hole. This is not going to be a problem for us, one wire would have been optimum but if two are required then two will be run.

Since we want all the units to be able to either receive free OTA signals, subscribe to DirecTv, or both in the case of the HR20 they had the following idea. They would design the system so that the OTA was sent over one of the wires, and would be hot all the time to all 50 units. The other wire would be used to then deliver the DirecTv signals. They stated that once those 2 wires were routed into each of the units, that they would be able to deliver any and all D* signals that any normal homeowner not in an MDU would be able to receive. This includes support of multiple receivers, though we didn't go into technical details here, I would imagine this would be via the normal assortment of stackers, de-stackers and/or multiplexers. Not my area of expertise so the terms might be wrong but the general idea is that the 2 wires can be split in the unit to support 3 different receivers. They did mention again the MFH-1.

I will be sending them the building plans and they will get back to us with two quotes. One for running the wires and putting in the OTA system. The other quote will be for the D* specific part of the system. This would be a renewable contract probably on a year by year basis, and might include incentives for signing up certain numbers of subscribers. Sounds like I will be dealing more in the future with the VP of sales and marketing than the technical guys as they seem to think that there is a technical solution that gives us what we want.

Robert


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

doctor j said:


> See these reports to gain a bit of insite into future
> ? KA requires 4X2.5 GHz stacking
> this is in line with D* triple bandwith by KA.
> 
> ...


Doc J,
This is a great find, thank you very much! I will go over these this weekend, and will be well on my way to getting a PhD in RF engineering 

Robert


----------



## thatkgbagent (Sep 16, 2006)

Just wanted to add (I'm in the same building as Robert, 'rmnowick') that the MDU folks also mentioned an MFH-2. I haven't looked for it yet, but I thought they said it was something that was coming soon.

As for the destackers, see the following pdf documents listed under Applications on the NAS webside. In particular, check out the one titled "MFH-1 General Configuration":

MFH-1 General Configuration

There it shows that the destackers are actually their SCD-4P5xx boxes (listed under their products page). They look capable of providing 1 or more IRD outputs from the single input sourced from their distribution boxes. An example system for a 48 unit MDU is shown here:

48 Unit MDU example

The MDU installers did mention the LMX units today, although I didn't know what they meant until seeing that diagram.

In general, what seems to have become clear is that the "MFH-1" is not actually a specific piece of hardware (my previous impression), but a term from DirecTV for "Multi-Family Housing" installation, and it's comprised of the hardware components shown in the NAS diagrams. The LMX boxes, I think, are active (i.e., powered) splitters allowing the splitting of the signals without loss of signal strength (as is the case for the splitters/destackers that are currently used in our building by the end users).

Also, given the above diagrams, I don't think the fiber optic solutions from Foxcom are necessary (probably overkill, actually, at least in terms of cost).


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

I wish we knew somebody, like a DTV contractor or KSO, that maybe has installed a NAS multisat overlay before? HMMM, there should be somebody, right here, amoung us. HMMMM.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

thatkgbagent said:


> Just wanted to add (I'm in the same building as Robert, 'rmnowick') that the MDU folks also mentioned an MFH-2. I haven't looked for it yet, but I thought they said it was something that was coming soon.
> 
> As for the destackers, see the following pdf documents listed under Applications on the NAS webside. In particular, check out the one titled "MFH-1 General Configuration":
> 
> ...


Kgb,
Now we are getting somewhere. The only question that I have is that the picture shows 5 satellites, but the 99 and 103 aren't shown. I believe the MPEG-4 Ka spot beams come from those guys? Since this is the MFH-1 system, maybe it supports the "old" satellite configuration and the MFH-2 that you refer to supports the Ka sats too?

From the picture it looks pretty simple, almost like the distribution box would only have that one device that can output to 64 individual units on one wire each. Once inside the unit the SCD-4P52 then takes the single wire and outputs 2 signals into the HR20. In our installation, the second wire would provide the OTA.

Oh yes, one other thing. I agree with sattec that an MDU installer should step up to the plate here and spill their guts out, so to speak...

Should this system ever get installed we will post detailed pictures of all the components, and what it cost us. This should help others that eventually want to go down the same path.

Robert


----------



## thatkgbagent (Sep 16, 2006)

rmnowick said:


> The only question that I have is that the picture shows 5 satellites, but the 99 and 103 aren't shown. I believe the MPEG-4 Ka spot beams come from those guys? Since this is the MFH-1 system, maybe it supports the "old" satellite configuration and the MFH-2 that you refer to supports the Ka sats too?


Since I haven't been able to find any more detailed specs of those boxes, I'm speculating now, but: I believe these systems downconvert the satellite signals from the Ka or Ku band frequencies to the same intermediate frequency (IF) that is then selectable via the IRD outputs of a multiswitch (the 3/5 LNB dishes all have multiswitches built in). Given a selected channel by an end user, the corresponding sat signal, but at IF, is output to their tuner which would only be designed to demodulate the data streams from a single, fixed IF frequency (it would be _way_ too costly to put the RF electronics in all the stb's that demodulate from all the different sat frequency bands that are used). So, I don't think it matters whether the input is taken as satellite 72.5 or 99, because at IF there wouldn't be any difference.

There is a caveat here, though: I don't know whether the 72.5/85/99/103 sats use both left-hand and right-hand circular polarization (LHCP/RHCP). Those NAS diagrams only show both CP's on the 101/119 sats, LHCP only from 110, and none on the 72.5/85 sats (altough there could be just one). What it looks like is that the NAS SCU-4P5M boxes take only 1 CP per input, and are limited to 4-6 inputs... Of course, the part number in the 48 unit example diagram is the SCU-4P5MDC, but the order number listed corresponds to the SCU-4P5MATB in their products list. For that -MATB, they spec it for 5 "converted" inputs (i.e., the IF signals). More info needed here...

The ultimate limitation, however, would come from the RG-6 coax's bandwidth of 3.5 GHz. The diagrams show the OTA signals occupying 50-800 MHz. I remember the MDU engineer mentioned they could put the OTA on the 2nd coax. If they did that, they could potentially stack a couple more sat signals (1 RHCP and 1 LHCP can be placed on top of each other in the same bandwidth since their polarizations make the signals orthogonal) in the 50-800 MHz band on the coax.



rmnowick said:


> Oh yes, one other thing. I agree with sattec that an MDU installer should step up to the plate here and spill their guts out, so to speak...


Does sattec's sarcasm seem to vaguely hint that he is such an installer? Is sattec short for satellite technician?


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

I could not find anything on a google search for MFH-2 but this is the designation for the system that will handle KA signals. I was told by a tech at PACEMSO that the MFH-1 system could be upgraded to KA and a MFH-2 system was a single all enclusive unit. If you look into the powerpoint presentation you can find the frequency stacks of the MFH-1 from 2MHz to >3GHZ. I don't know where they can go on coax for 8 x 500 MHz KA bands. Fiber could wavelength multiplex but at 3 GHz ,I believe coax is "outta room" and multiple lines (2 to 4) would be required. A separated solution is FTM where the multiswich is SMART and sends only the frequency needed for the STB but this won't work in a large system without multiple smaller nodes (probable 16 or less STB's per node).

Doctor j


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
Wanted to provide an update as it has been a couple weeks. We have heard back from the MDU installer. They are working on the contracts, but apparently have a backlog of things to do so we are looking at several weeks before they get back to us. Our next Homeowners Association meeting is scheduled for November 14th, so with any luck we will get something before then that can be discussed at the board meeting.

I realize it's not much in the way of actual progress, but by posting incremental progress being made it might help others down the line who wonder why things like this take so long...

Robert


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Thanks for the update.
I have been checking regularly to see if any progress.
The MFH-2 system apparently will be the D* system to distribute Ka signals but I'm still uncertain as to how many "wires" will be required. 
Although not completely filled it is beyond me to understand how 4 x 500 MHz bands for Ku 101,110&119 : 250 MHz for 72.5 : 500 MHz for 95 : 900 MHz for OTA and now 8 x 500 MHz Ka bands are going to occupy one coax. 
Even the best case senerio of coax rated fo 4.5 to 5 GHz wouldn't be enough.
Pacemso tech reported end of 2006, early 2007 before any info on MFH-2 systems

Doctor j


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

doctor j said:


> Thanks for the update.
> I have been checking regularly to see if any progress.
> The MFH-2 system apparently will be the D* system to distribute Ka signals but I'm still uncertain as to how many "wires" will be required.
> Although not completely filled it is beyond me to understand how 4 x 500 MHz bands for Ku 101,110&119 : 250 MHz for 72.5 : 500 MHz for 95 : 900 MHz for OTA and now 8 x 500 MHz Ka bands are going to occupy one coax.
> ...


Dr J,
I thought that I mentioned in one of my above posts that the MDU installer is proposing a 2 wire system. One of the wires will be for OTA which will be delivered to all residents free of charge. The other wire will be used for the D* distribution. Since we have stacks of 3 units, there will be 6 wires going up each stack. They will be drilling 2" holes for the wiring.

Does having all the D* signals on one wire *without* the OTA still seem to have a problem as far as you know?

Robert


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Given the massive expansion in bandwidth that comes with the Ka system proposed by D* one wire still seems unlikely without something "new".
Ka will at least triple if not quadruple the bandwidth for D*. As I've said before this will be 8 stacks of 500MHz . The present MFH-1 system is using 4 (not completely filled) 500MHz stacks for 101/110&119 Ku, plus OTA (about 900 Mhz) (250 MHz of that shared with locals in 72.5 markets as applicable) and <500 MHz for the 95 international signals. That's all put on one coax spaced from 50 to 3500 MHz. Adding Ka doesn't fit even if you take away OTA, 72.5 locals and 95 internationals.The something "new" would have to be some sort of multiplexing like fiber or FTM (frequency translation modulation) where the receivers request a channel and the smart switch selects from all available frequencies and relays only those needed. 

Doctor j


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
Just heard back from the installer today, and I will need some technical help from the forum it looks like. The installer came back with a single quote instead of the two quotes that I requested. When I wrote back and requested that they break the quote down into two parts I was surprised at the response.

Just to repeat what is probably earlier in the thread, here is what the two quotes that we requested are for.

Quote #1: Install and run 2 wires for each unit from a central distribution point to each of the units. We have 17 stacks 3 units each. Wiring in the basement. One of the wires will be used for an OTA distribution system, other wire to be used for a DirecTv distribution system. As part of this quote, also include the hardware required to actually distribute the OTA signals to each of the 50 units.

Quote #2: Install a DirecTv distribution system that utilizes the second wire that has already been run as part of quote #1.

Now, either I totally misjudged what the costs might be, or I'm missing something when it comes to figuring out what an OTA distribution costs to put together. For quote #1, I was assuming that buying and running the 2 wires to each unit would be 90% of the cost, with the remaining 10% being the actual hardware required to grab the OTA signal (antenna), get it on the wires, and amplify as required on the way to the units. I am assuming this based on the fact that we already have a 35 year old system in place that does allow for some ATSC reception based on connecting an HDTV Wonder card to it, and pulling in some digital channels. I also assumed that the labor for running the wires, and the wire cost itself, was much more than the electronics involved.

Here is what the installer came back with:


> Do you undrestand that with the advent of digital broadcast it will be necessary for you to install a head end with a minimumm cost of approx one thousand dollars per channel for satisfactory distribution over a central coax sytem?


Maybe we have a misunderstanding. We have roughly 50 different digital channels available here in Pasadena, including sub-channels. Could it really be that an OTA distribution system would cost $50,000 on top of the cost of laying the wires assuming we wanted access to all 50 digital channels? What am I missing here?

Robert


----------



## bpayne (Oct 25, 2004)

rmnowick said:


> All,
> Just heard back from the installer today, and I will need some technical help from the forum it looks like. The installer came back with a single quote instead of the two quotes that I requested. When I wrote back and requested that they break the quote down into two parts I was surprised at the response.
> 
> Just to repeat what is probably earlier in the thread, here is what the two quotes that we requested are for.
> ...


For reference to the "OTA issue" see my post here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=706267#post706267



doctor j said:


> Given the massive expansion in bandwidth that comes with the Ka system proposed by D* one wire still seems unlikely without something "new".
> Ka will at least triple if not quadruple the bandwidth for D*. As I've said before this will be 8 stacks of 500MHz . The present MFH-1 system is using 4 (not completely filled) 500MHz stacks for 101/110&119 Ku, plus OTA (about 900 Mhz) (250 MHz of that shared with locals in 72.5 markets as applicable) and <500 MHz for the 95 international signals. That's all put on one coax spaced from 50 to 3500 MHz. Adding Ka doesn't fit even if you take away OTA, 72.5 locals and 95 internationals.The something "new" would have to be some sort of multiplexing like fiber or FTM (frequency translation modulation) where the receivers request a channel and the smart switch selects from all available frequencies and relays only those needed.
> 
> Doctor j


FTM is the answer for the 'KA-band + 1 wire + OTA feed' issue that is being discussed. Again, let me reiterate this- band stacking is not an issue when you can stick all the satellite slots into 266 mHz of bandwidth.

The OTA band will not even be touched.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

> For reference to the "OTA issue" see my post here:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.ph...267#post706267


bpayne,
I just read through that entire thread, including your post pointed to by the above. Not quite sure that I understand your reference to it. And I'm certain that I only understood about 10% of the other thread to begin with 

Are you saying that our prospective MDU OTA distribution system would require the upcoming FTM hardware? That would imply that there are no MDU installations in place currently that distribute ATSC signals, cause FTM isn't out yet unless I'm mistaken 



> FTM is the answer for the 'KA-band + 1 wire + OTA feed' issue that is being discussed. Again, let me reiterate this- band stacking is not an issue when you can stick all the satellite slots into 266 mHz of bandwidth.
> 
> The OTA band will not even be touched.


FTM may or may not be overkill for what we are seeking. I'm just trying to get to the question of whether if we have 2 wires going into each unit, where one is specifically reserved for OTA and the other for D*, if the cost of the OTA distribution hardware exclusive of the wires and installation itself is $1,000 per digital channel distributed?

Robert


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rmnowick said:


> ... I'm just trying to get to the question of whether if we have 2 wires going into each unit, where one is specifically reserved for OTA and the other for D*, if the cost of the OTA distribution hardware exclusive of the wires and installation itself is $1,000 per digital channel distributed?
> 
> Robert


If you have a wire dedicated to OTA and nothing else, and you want the OTA to just be the straight off the air OTA rather than try to build a cable company version of OTA, then just $1000 per anything is way, way too much. (Ok, maybe per building...)

What you need is a commercial quality TV amplifier. (Yeah, they call it a "Distribution System", but all it does is amplify the signals so everyone gets good signal strength.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

rmnowick said:


> All,
> Just heard back from the installer today, and I will need some technical help from the forum it looks like. The installer came back with a single quote instead of the two quotes that I requested. When I wrote back and requested that they break the quote down into two parts I was surprised at the response.
> 
> Just to repeat what is probably earlier in the thread, here is what the two quotes that we requested are for.
> ...


Did they specify in the quote that the whole DirecTV system is/will be MPEG4 compatible for the new Sats... What system will they be using? I'm dealing with an upcoming MDU upgrade myself and it seems the fully integrated MPEG4 master control units (PACE) are not available yet.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

> Did they specify in the quote that the whole DirecTV system is/will be MPEG4 compatible for the new Sats... What system will they be using? I'm dealing with an upcoming MDU upgrade myself and it seems the fully integrated MPEG4 master control units (PACE) are not available yet.


One of our requirements was that the D* distribution system be compatible with the new MPEG-4 sats, and that it offer all residents the same channel selection that a single family home owner would have access to. They have not as yet sent us the entire system system description, but the short e-mail that I received mentioned that it was an MFH1 system. Whether that is able to satisfy our laundry list of requirements is still unknown at this point, at least to me, until we receive the full system description.

I believe that in on the site discussions with their technical guy he indicated that they were using the PACE system. Any links you have concerning the availability or lack thereof concerning the PACE system would be appreciated.

Robert


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

rmnowick said:


> One of our requirements was that the D* distribution system be compatible with the new MPEG-4 sats, and that it offer all residents the same channel selection that a single family home owner would have access to. They have not as yet sent us the entire system system description, but the short e-mail that I received mentioned that it was an MFH1 system. Whether that is able to satisfy our laundry list of requirements is still unknown at this point, at least to me, until we receive the full system description.
> 
> I believe that in on the site discussions with their technical guy he indicated that they were using the PACE system. Any links you have concerning the availability or lack thereof concerning the PACE system would be appreciated.
> 
> Robert


Here's a link to the PACE online catalog:

http://www.pacemso.com/PDF/2006PaceCatalog.pdf

Page 14 of the catalog describes the MFH1 system... It indicates that there will be a module that can be attached that is in development which will allow Ka band signals... it's almost the end of 2006 so I'm wondering where it's at development wise... and if it will still work. I was under the impression that the next model MFH2 will have the Ka built in... but I don't know when that will be released either.


----------



## Cap'n Preshoot (Jul 16, 2006)

tibber said:


> If you have a wire dedicated to OTA and nothing else, and you want the OTA to just be the straight off the air OTA rather than try to build a cable company version of OTA, then just $1000 per anything is way, way too much. (Ok, maybe per building...)
> 
> What you need is a commercial quality TV amplifier. (Yeah, they call it a "Distribution System", but all it does is amplify the signals so everyone gets good signal strength.)
> 
> ...


With what y'all are proposing, I see no way to do it and have something you'll be happy with, without building some type of "cable company" equivalent head end. You cannot just amp the hell out of your OTA and distribute the result. The problem you're overlooking is that OTA by its very nature is going to have individual signal levels that are all over the place. Before you can distribute this you'll need to clean it up and get the levels of each one of your OTA channels approximately equal. Amping some, padding others then multiplexing the result all together.

Trying to redistribute every available OTA channel simply is not practical without throwing some cubic dollars at this idea. A kilobuck per channel (done right), tho high, isn't really out of line, particularly if you're after the digital (and HD) channels. Remember the operative phrase here, "done right". You want something the residents are going to be happy with and not complain about. More importantly, you want something that's also going to last. In any trailer park you can throw up a 60-footer with some broadband multichannel antennas on it, tie it all together with some 300-ohm twinlead, hook a balun on it with a 500-mhz Rat Shack grade 50-db apartment amp on the other end and hang it all over the trailer park. The result won't be pretty, nor will the reception, but the whole shebang including the tower and the concrete holding it probably won't be much over $1000 and 5 years from now it will be a mess, assuming the FAA hasn't already shut you down for leakage into the aircraft bands.

"Done right" I forsee one or more racksfull of gear where levels can be set then fed into a sufficient quantity of multiport channel combiners. The output is then amplified with a commercial grade trunk amplifier and then sent on its way around the building using 1/2" aluminum hardline with directional coupler-type taps.

As in an analog system, at each "drop" you have decreasing value taps where you tap off from the distribution with the idea of giving each "customer" a baseband signal level somewhere between +13 (max) and +8 (min) with the digital channels approx 10~12 db down from the analogs. On a private system I would not suggest going greater than 3 amplifiers in cascade and pay attention to your levels and max combined input levels to the amp(s). The more channels carried, the lower the input to the amp else you'll overdrive and wind up with mix products and third and 5th order harmonics out the wazoo. I also strongly encourage you to have your system level-checked at least annualy.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ok, I admit I severly insulted the distribution system concept, but I kinda did mean something a bit better than stacking a few amplifiers.

That said, I didn't realize all that went into a distribution system of that size. Thanks for the education Cap'n.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I'm not willing to give up on a distribution system based on a distribution amp, but you're probably not going to find any way to put five satellites on a single wire without going to QAM. The logistics of putting three satellites on one wire and two on the other (along with the OTA) is possible, but probably hasn't been done yet and such a scheme would certainly require some sophisticated brains on the receiver end that likely aren't built in.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Cap'n,
Wow, I had no idea that the OTA distribution was going to be so costly! It would certainly seem that there are going to be a lot of apartment and condominium buildings that are going to have to eat quite the large bill come 2009 if they want to distribute the OTA signals.

Now on to the follow up questions. Anyone feel free to chime in though Cap'n certainly seems to have a good grasp of the technical end of things.

1. I'm assuming that the system you describe can distribute both NTSC and ATSC signals? So, when we pick and choose the channels that we want for $1,000 each it could be a mixture of them?

2. Would the system be any less expensive if we chose only ATSC distribution? With the NTSC being turned off in a little over 2 years, if we could save money by eliminating it up front that is an attractive option. We would be future proofed with the ATSC but would just be lacking the NTSC for 2+ years.

3. Another one of my assumptions from a cost standpoint was that maintaining that OTA distribution system would cost almost nothing. That was back when I also thought it would cost almost nothing. If our HOA is responsible for the maintenance cost of the OTA system, what is that likely to run per year? That will have to be factored into the decision too.

4. Does the $1k per channel include all digital sub-channels for a given channel? I know the PBS station uses the sub-channel for SD versus HD, and the local ABC station runs a 24 hour radar scan.

I realize that this thread is now diverging from the D* portion of the delivery system. But, we do also want the OTA component and others here may want that too. I'll post the specifics of the D* system when I get them from the installer.

Robert


----------



## Cap'n Preshoot (Jul 16, 2006)

rmnowick said:


> Cap'n,
> Wow, I had no idea that the OTA distribution was going to be so costly! It would certainly seem that there are going to be a lot of apartment and condominium buildings that are going to have to eat quite the large bill come 2009 if they want to distribute the OTA signals.


Why in heaven's name do they want to have access to them all??????????



> 1. I'm assuming that the system you describe can distribute both NTSC and ATSC signals? So, when we pick and choose the channels that we want for $1,000 each it could be a mixture of them?


Considering the investment you're about to make I think I would lean toward doing ATSC only and encourage the disgruntled to find an ATSC set top box (which they're going to need anyway when NTSC gets shut off, assuming the latest timetable. It's been pushed back before, don't be surprised if it gets pushed back again.)



> 2. Would the system be any less expensive if we chose only ATSC distribution? With the NTSC being turned off in a little over 2 years, if we could save money by eliminating it up front that is an attractive option. We would be future proofed with the ATSC but would just be lacking the NTSC for 2+ years.
> 
> 3. Another one of my assumptions from a cost standpoint was that maintaining that OTA distribution system would cost almost nothing. That was back when I also thought it would cost almost nothing. If our HOA is responsible for the maintenance cost of the OTA system, what is that likely to run per year? That will have to be factored into the decision too.


That's a question for your MDU installation company. You're on the right track for having sought referral to a company with a good reputation. Unfortunatly quality doesn't come cheap. Arguably a kilobuck per channel is a tad on the high side, but by quoting high they may also be trying to discourage you from creating a monster (the 50-channel OTA backbone). Carrying redundant channels, i.e., duplicating network feeds from different markets would seem like a waste of money (blackout rules notwithstanding).



> 4. Does the $1k per channel include all digital sub-channels for a given channel? I know the PBS station uses the sub-channel for SD versus HD, and the local ABC station runs a 24 hour radar scan.


It should, but that is really another question for your MDU installation company.



> I realize that this thread is now diverging from the D* portion of the delivery system. But, we do also want the OTA component and others here may want that too. I'll post the specifics of the D* system when I get them from the installer.


Save me the trouble of re-reading this whole thread. How many living units (dwellings, homes, apartments, etc)) are you attempting to serve and over how large of a physical area are they spread out? Also if I may ask, what are the economic demographics here?


----------



## Cap'n Preshoot (Jul 16, 2006)

As an aside here and before you get your appetite(s) all whetted up for the illusive MPEG-4 channels, have any of you actually seen what MPEG-4 compressed HD looks like? (I've a strong hunch you haven't)

From what I've seen of them here in the Houston, TX market, the D* MPEG-4 HD locals cannot hold a candle to OTA. The MPEG-4 locals are chock full of macroblocking on action sports and most all closeups having scene changes. The first 1~2 seconds of the new scene closeup are macroblocked beyond belief.

If that is what's to become of the future of HD satellite TV, count me out. Admittedly I've not yet seen what E*'s HD looks like, but presently Cable looks better than D*'s MPEG-4 satellite offerings, at least here in Houston.


----------



## Cap'n Preshoot (Jul 16, 2006)

What is the MDU company proposing for distribution, coax or fiber?


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Cap'n Preshoot;744753 said:


> What is the MDU company proposing for distribution, coax or fiber?


Cap'n,
The MDU company is proposing coax, an MFH1 system. Two wires to each unit. We have 50 total units in the building with 16 stacks of 3, and one stack of 2. All above a basement which is where all the wiring goes. They are laying all new wires so that is a big part of the cost.

Robert


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
Well, just had some discussions with the installer, and the feedback I received here was very helpful in understanding the issues involved with distributing OTA to the building. We will probably be getting the system we want, in terms of functionality, but not the ownership concept that we desired. Let me elaborate...

We had originally wanted a completely separate OTA distribution system. This was desired so that whatever happened to the D* service, we at least could provide free OTA to all the residents. The stumbling block there was the cost of building the OTA distribution *separate* from the D* distribution system. Thats why the installer only provided a single quote. The system they want to install will distribute both the D* signals and the OTA signals. I guess that by using the same electronics to stack all the signals that it cuts down on the cost?

Anyway, the primary difference is that they would own ALL the electronics, and we would only own the wires. Anyone who wants can get free OTA over the system just by connecting in their unit to one of the 2 wires present. The downside of the installer owning the electronics is that if after the contract ends and they or us decide that we no longer want them to be the D* provider, we lose our free OTA signals too. At that point though, since we already have wires in place, it would probably be a simple matter to find another MDU installer who would put in all new electronics. A few years down the road the cost of doing that will no doubt be less than now. Especially since the wires will be there.

We still need to hammer out the legal terms of the deal as this is different from a normal contract that a building signs with an MDU installer. Typically they don't want anyone else (i.e. cable, Fios) doing business there. In our case, since we are paying for the new wires, we intend to also continue to allow the cable company to provide service on their separate wires so the residents then have the option of any/all of cable, D* and OTA.

The other aspect of this that makes it somewhat more difficult is that the quote for the installation price is on the order of 50% higher than what we budgeted. If we can offer residents the 3 options mentioned above though, it might be worth it.

Robert


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

All,
Well, my last post turns out to be in error. While starting to dig into the technical details over which OTA channels would be distributed, I have come to find out that the quote doesn't actually include the distribution of OTA signals. This was either a misunderstanding or the installer is just reluctant to build a system that drains subscribers away from the D* portion of the system. Which is understandable. Currently trying to get them to update the quote to include the OTA distribution too.

Do any of you know of an MDU installer in SoCal that can/has designed and built a system that distributes D* and OTA both? Even an OTA distribution system only including all new wire installation might be a good alternative assuming that the D* can be added later.

Maybe by starting down multiple paths at once we can find our way to the destination sooner  

Robert


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Cap'n Preshoot;742216 said:


> With what y'all are proposing, I see no way to do it and have something you'll be happy with, without building some type of "cable company" equivalent head end. You cannot just amp the hell out of your OTA and distribute the result.


believe it or not...there is a device, you have it cut for the off air channels your gonna need, you can use more than one in a building basement, they handle about 6 off air channels per device and this device gives you a "tune pot" for each channel. It takes a local antenna in and has the improved balanced signal as the output. I've seen 'em, and know the guy that used or uses them. I believe it blocks everything but the 6 "cut" channels and i think it was "active". He said they were better than nothing.
using two of these would give you 12 " balance improved" channels to dump into the dist. All of this was a few years ago.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

rmnowick said:


> Do any of you know of an MDU installer in SoCal that can/has designed and built a system that distributes D* and OTA both? Even an OTA distribution system only including all new wire installation might be a good alternative assuming that the D* can be added later.
> 
> Robert


I do multisat single wire distribution systems using the NAS product line and send a 21 channel smatv instead of the ota, all on one wire. Its a three sat solution now but it can be upgraded to ka when/ if needed.


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

Ok, time for a pre-holiday update  

I just sent off a laundry list of technical, legal, cost and ownership information to the installer. They will be checking it over and having their legal team modify the stock contract to include the provisions that we agree upon.

I should mention that it appears that we will be able to get the OTA distribution that we were hoping for over one of the two wires, and maintain ownership of the OTA electronics. This is at a one time cost of $1,000 per digital channel. There is also a volume discount on the upfront cost if we can get a certain % of the units to subscribe to a D* package for a one year period. This is good as it could reduce our overall outlay if we can meet the minimum required threshold of 40%. I guess this kind of provision is very common in MDU installations since the installer apparently gets a cut of the monthly charges?


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

rmnowick said:


> There is also a volume discount on the upfront cost if we can get a certain % of the units to subscribe to a D* package for a one year period. This is good as it could reduce our overall outlay if we can meet the minimum required threshold of 40%. *I guess this kind of provision is very common in MDU installations since the installer apparently gets a cut of the monthly charges?*


nope. :nono2:


----------



## rmnowick (Sep 15, 2006)

sattec said:


> nope. :nono2:


Sattec,
Wow, so the MDU installers do not typically (or ever?) get a cut of the monthly revenue stream? Not asking you to divulge anything that you shouldn't be, but how in the world would a company be able to make any money installing a system in an apartment building for free, provided a large % of the residents signed a 1 year contract, if the installer didn't get a cut of the revenue stream?

The only other possibility that I can think of is that maybe D* gives the installer a "one time" payment for bringing on X customers. That would be a tough way to make money though, because the installer is contractually bound to maintain the system in an operational manner. What incentive would there be for the installer to go out and fix a broken system that they receive no revenue sharing from, other than the contract that they have that does require them to maintain the system?

Robert

P.S. In looking over my sentence that you highlighted, I'm not sure if the Nope means that 1) the provision of discounting is not common or 2) the installer doesn't get a monthly revenue cut. I assumed the latter.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

rmnowick said:


> the Nope means that 1) the provision of discounting is not common


..........


----------



## seadan (Jan 23, 2006)

Hi all,

My building is currently going through the DirecTV MDU installation with the MFH-1 system. At the moment I'm the guinea pig for the building, as I've been leading the charge to make this all happen. Once things are fully up, we'll have 101/110/119/95 plus OTA available, with the Ka-band upgrade to MFH-2 when it is available (tenatively later this year).

Our biggest problem is that not everything is working as expected and there isn't anyone in our area who really knows how to work/tune the system. The documentation is apparently very poor 

If you have any questions about the process or system I'm happy to answer.


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

When you say "things aren't working as expected" exactly what do you mean?
I'm about to start a try with a MFH-1 system in my home due to "lack of wire " issues and believe the NAS system will aleviate the bandwidth constraints. I have an entertaintment center with 3 DVR's . I'm also getting OTA and my wife wants to keep the local cable since she " knows " its channels. I have 4 lines to the area and have cable diplexed on one , OTA diplexed on one and KA signals on 2. 2 dvr's are HR-10 with only one HR-20. I have all the pieces and plan to start connections and rewiring this week. Any advice on setup issues will be appreciated.

Doctor j


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

seadan said:


> Our biggest problem is that not everything is working as expected and there isn't anyone in our area who really knows how to work/tune the system. The documentation is apparently very poor


the documentation is poor, there is a certified tech in the medford Oregon area that does multisat stacked, he did a NAS system with me, on South Padre island. It was one of the first in the USA or the first. Nobody could make it play, until it was completly retapped and where do you find taps for a 3.7 system? We made taps!!using the " drop multiplexer" ( a fancy powered two way, no loss, splitter) and some high freq pads on one output, that changed everything, finally we were able to "peel off' some signal at each floor and continue on to the next floor. we had signal left over at the roof!!!


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Initial attempts failed. Documentation is not poor it is non-existent!!
On the phone to tech support at Pacemso with some interesting info. After my original connection at a test HR-10 receiver was getting only odd 101 transponders and most but not all of the 110/119 transponders (not counting spots) I asked for help. Seems they recommend a polarity lock unit prior to the SA-6A amplifier. They use the amp to balance the inputs not necessarily amplify them. Recommended attenuators prior to the master stacker (SCU-4P5MATW) if runs under 100 ft. I have a Sonara HRPID1422 polarity locker and will try this next. Advised to realize that the RHCP/LHCP channels of the Sonara and NAS units are reversed, thus inputs cross. ie Sonara 1 to NAS 2 ; Sonara 2 to NAS 1 ; Sonara 3 to NAS 4 ; and Sonara 4 to NAS 3. May be a couple of days till try #2 but will post results.

Diagram for 1 unit test will be:

3LNBDish - HRPID1422 - SA-6A - SCU-4P5MATW - SCD-4P54W

Results if successful will give 4 satellite drops and OTA thru (1) one! coax!

Doctor j


----------



## seadan (Jan 23, 2006)

doctor j said:


> When you say "things aren't working as expected" exactly what do you mean?
> I'm about to start a try with a MFH-1 system in my home due to "lack of wire " issues and believe the NAS system will aleviate the bandwidth constraints. I have an entertaintment center with 3 DVR's . I'm also getting OTA and my wife wants to keep the local cable since she " knows " its channels. I have 4 lines to the area and have cable diplexed on one , OTA diplexed on one and KA signals on 2. 2 dvr's are HR-10 with only one HR-20. I have all the pieces and plan to start connections and rewiring this week. Any advice on setup issues will be appreciated.
> 
> Doctor j


Actually, the Sat side of things seems to be working great now. At some point there was a power surge that blew out the SAT C converter, and once they replaced that part we were seeing intermittent failures with 119/95; it would come in OK at the top level, but not make it past that. After replacing the LNB, things started working perfectly. The sats all go into an inline amp, and then into the combined boxes. The signals are all right on spec, and in my unit (at the very last combiner box), I'm seeing signals up in the 95+ range for pretty much everything.

The troubleshooting was the killer part; the problem was so bizarre and intermittant that it took a while to figure out.

Now we just need to get the antennas aligned properly for the OTA channels, and it should be good to go.


----------



## seadan (Jan 23, 2006)

doctor j said:


> Initial attempts failed. Documentation is not poor it is non-existent!!
> On the phone to tech support at Pacemso with some interesting info. After my original connection at a test HR-10 receiver was getting only odd 101 transponders and most but not all of the 110/119 transponders (not counting spots) I asked for help. Seems they recommend a polarity lock unit prior to the SA-6A amplifier. They use the amp to balance the inputs not necessarily amplify them. Recommended attenuators prior to the master stacker (SCU-4P5MATW) if runs under 100 ft. I have a Sonara HRPID1422 polarity locker and will try this next. Advised to realize that the RHCP/LHCP channels of the Sonara and NAS units are reversed, thus inputs cross. ie Sonara 1 to NAS 2 ; Sonara 2 to NAS 1 ; Sonara 3 to NAS 4 ; and Sonara 4 to NAS 3. May be a couple of days till try #2 but will post results.
> 
> Diagram for 1 unit test will be:
> ...


That sound about right. We have 4 separate dishes, and each LNB is locked appropriately for the input (with either voltage or tone or both). Once you get the signals balanced and going into the system, it should be great.

How did you manage to get this system yourself? Can individuals purchase it directly?


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Pacemso and PDI sell parts or an intact system.
I got some of the parts from e-bay that got me started.

Doctor j


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

doctor j said:


> Recommended attenuators prior to the master stacker (SCU-4P5MATW) if runs under 100 ft.


this is a *must do*!

doc, put some pad on the output of the master stacker, and get one receiver/tv working perfect right there on a six foot jumper, you find the "balance" by padding the sat inputs and using a receiver, it worked for us. You will need to pad down every subscriber unit around the house, you will blow the cpu/rx away if you don't " Balance the sat inputs" and "pad at the sub unit".


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Thanks Sattec.
I am setting up a single test receiver before connecting the master unit throughout the house.
I'm not certain I understand exactly what your instructions are.
I will "balance the inputs" to the master unit by adjusting the gain on the SA-6A amplifier with each input to "go up to the red LED then back the gain down till green". I have 10 db attenuators between the amp and master so that the signal amplification does not overload.
Any actual instructions about the MFH-1 installation would be greatly appreciated as nothing other than a spec sheet came with any of the units. Please PM me if you have something that I can use!

Doctor j


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

doc, I did not amp between dish and master stacker, my cable length was less than 100 ft, and I just padded the input to the stacker, at the same time, I put a 20-25 pad on the cpe to simulate distance away from the master stacker. I felt it was better to used an actual rx to set it up since thats what the customer were going to see, plus I never done one before, to get one rx working properly became the goal, then make it work at the end of the line, the rest fell into place, I did have to pad the cpe everytime, or the closer I was to the master stacker the more pad I needed at the cpe. Let me restate this once more, the rx's that were close to the MS had to be padded at the cpe or I didn't have enough power to make it to the top floor, the farther I got from the MS, the less pad I needed on the cpe. I used the thru ports on the master stacker to power the smatv.


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Sattec ; Thank you
I'm going to attempt try #2 either tonight or tomorrow.
I'll post results.

Doctor j


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

Alright....I've had enough!! I'm coming over!!!!! ..joking

I had to pad the 101 feed down with 10 or 12, and the 119 took 6-8, and the 110/119 didn't need any pad at the master stacker. If I remember correctly, the 101 was blowing the stacker away

oh yeah..make sure what tp's you need for your area, some tp's may not look right on the meter but you may not even use those tp's

I used three dishes to get the best possible signal, my master stacker has no "peaking lights"


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

sattec said:


> believe it or not...there is a device, you have it cut for the off air channels your gonna need, you can use more than one in a building basement, they handle about 6 off air channels per device and this device gives you a "tune pot" for each channel. It takes a local antenna in and has the improved balanced signal as the output. I've seen 'em, and know the guy that used or uses them. I believe it blocks everything but the 6 "cut" channels and i think it was "active". He said they were better than nothing.
> using two of these would give you 12 " balance improved" channels to dump into the dist. All of this was a few years ago.


What product are you referring to? The Pico/Tru-Spec MX-4U was discontinued over a decade ago. I still have a couple dozen, but I won't sell any except in complete systems I build. The MX-7 is still made but is VHF only. Tin Lee in Canada can custom make some filters at prices that are reasonable for MATV.

I typically combine 16 to 18 off-air UHF DTV channels into one trunkline. In my market, there are two towers two blocks apart that carry DTV transmitters on channels 34, 35, 36, and 39, and 33 will be added to one of them. Channels 15 (Univision) and 48 (NBC) are a mile to the south, and Channel 27 (PBS) is four miles further south, and Channel 51 is two miles east of the 33-39 cluster. But because many of my customers are all around these transmitters, the antenna array and filtering needed vary greatly for two buildings even if they are within a mile of each other.

I also bring in Baltimore signals from about 35 miles away on channels 38, 40, 46, 52, and 59, and I include 42 from 15 miles to the east (PBS), 43 from 25 miles to the west, and 57 from ten miles to the west, and sometimes channel 30 from 30 miles SW.

I charge customers with an existing MATV distribution system a turn-key price of $4,995 for me to configure and install whatever it takes to mix and match all of these channels, and that price includes one launch amplifier. I usually can arrange for rough sloping with the DTV signals about 10dB stronger than the analog, so my analog channels 56 and 66 will typically leave the headend at about 55dBmv, whereas my DTV 57 and 59 will measure about 45dBmV.

I've made a lot of people happy withy these systems, of which I've installed about a dozen. On Sunday, the residents can watch the Baltimore Ravens AND the Washington Redskins in HDTV at the same time.

I presently offer two DirecTV trunkline architectures. One is to use dual stacked Ku trunklines. That requires the resident to arrange for a second home run into his unit, and then, because the HR20s don't have an internal Ku destacker, I have to kludge something within the residential unit to externally destack them. Those installations typically cost $500 to $1,000, depending on how big a mess his internal apartment wiring becomes.

The other architecture is to use a couple of Sonora wideband dual trunkline amps and develop a four-trunkline Ku/Ka stacked system, but that of course can only support one tuner per home run. Since my largest and most lucrative class of customer is assisted living communities, over 90% of those residents are satisfied having just one tuner operable in their apartment.

I don't push any customer to buy either of these DirecTV systems because I am certain that there is something in the offing that will make them obsolete, but some MDUs just have to have DirecTV HDTV now, and since they are all rich, I don't feel real guilty when they buy something for $10,000 that I know will have to be gutted or upgraded in the near future, but I am candid with them upfront regarding the limitations of the present technology.


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

AntAltMike said:


> Since my largest and most lucrativve class of customer is assisted living communities, ..


that is the sadest thing I've read all day bro.....

yes, mx-4, mx-7


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

AntAltMike said:


> ...my largest and most lucrative class of customer is assisted living communities...





sattec said:


> that is the sadest thing I've read all day bro.....


These are Sunrise retirement communities, most of which were originally Marriotts before they got out of that business, where the residents pay about $5,000 a month to be coddled. A lot of their residents are as fit as I am. The common refrain there is that no one working there will ever be able to afford to live there.


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

SUCCESS!!!

With the Sonora polarity locker (HRPID1422) and the correct wiring; along with the correct balancing of the master stacker the test HR10-250 has successfully been setup !!! This means that I have 4 sat inputs and! OTA digital TV from the D* dish and OTA antenna array thru ONE coax cable. I'm now going to setup 4 viewing areas with 1 coax input each to 4;4;2;2 sat. outputs to these areas with 2 SCD4P54W customer outputs and 2 SCD4P52W customer outputs. It is expensive and moderately complicated to set up but this system does accomplish ALL of the complex requirements I had for it . I am ecstatic!!!

Doctor j


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

hey!!!! touchdown!!!!! :hurah:


you don't need the pol. locker, take it out later and watch what happens. If you do this, you must block voltage on one side of 101, to obtain the default polarity.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

doctor j said:


> SUCCESS!!!
> 
> With the Sonora polarity locker (HRPID1422) and the correct wiring; along with the correct balancing of the master stacker the test HR10-250 has successfully been setup !!! This means that I have 4 sat inputs and! OTA digital TV from the D* dish and OTA antenna array thru ONE coax cable. I'm now going to setup 4 viewing areas with 1 coax input each to 4;4;2;2 sat. outputs to these areas with 2 SCD4P54W customer outputs and 2 SCD4P52W customer outputs. It is expensive and moderately complicated to set up but this system does accomplish ALL of the complex requirements I had for it . I am ecstatic!!!
> 
> Doctor j


Congratulations!

Pictures (diagrams) and cost please!


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Pricelist:
HRPDI-1422 - $44.99 @solid signal

SA-6A - $173.00 @pacemso

SCU-4PMATW - $643.47 @pacemso

LMX-82R - $76.97 @pacemso

SCD-4P54W - $218.00 @pacemso


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

I didn't need the first two "things' ( amp and locker) cause I used a lnb on each bird ( three dishes), the switch in the p-3 ditates the amp and locker needed...I think. 

thats good info to know that I need those for use with a p-3

congats!!!


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

doctor j said:


> Pricelist:
> HRPDI-1422 - $44.99 @solid signal
> 
> SA-6A - $173.00 @pacemso
> ...


thats why getting the firmware into the rx has been so important...hr-20 is preloaded..no cpe needed


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

can't stop looking at the signal screen, right doc? it is amazing...all that on one wire, I've had my NAS up over a year now. there is about a 48 hr "wow" factor


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

Just enjoying the new setup!
Thanks for all the encouragement.

Doctor j


----------



## seadan (Jan 23, 2006)

sattec said:


> thats why getting the firmware into the rx has been so important...hr-20 is preloaded..no cpe needed


What do you mean by this? You don't need a customer unit with an HR-20?


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

false......I understood it was but now, five minutes ago, my original source is unsure if the ftm is on board, Pace told me a while ago it was, I still don't know for sure...sorry....if doc has an hr-20, he may find a menu setting and be able to send back his 200$ cpe.....just a thought doc, could you look around for a "special" or "ftm" selection in the installation menu?


----------



## doctor j (Jun 14, 2006)

I do not have an HR-20.
I'm holding out on MPEG 4 recording till "all the new channels" are available.
I'm feeding 2 each HR10-250's from2 quad customer units in each of 2 main veiwing areas.
I have a H-20 from a separate AT-9 dish in each area with a single coax and now feed cable and OTA signals thru separate coax feeds without any diplexing. Total of 4 coax feeds. (5 tuners,cable and ota)
My problem will come when I do upgrade to HR-20's. Any ideas on the use of FTM, MFH-2 or upgrading the MFH-1 system to add the KA signals?

Doctor j


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

doctor j said:


> Any ideas on the use of FTM, MFH-2 or upgrading the MFH-1 system to add the KA signals?Doctor j


I'm lost...I never knew ftm wasn't the NAS system/software, apprarently ftm is not NAS, and Dow is involved with ftm and NAS is not. Also...Nace is the distributor for ftm?? but there is no mention of it on the web site...I'm lost and I are one!!


----------



## JosephDrums (May 30, 2007)

Greetings, the FTM(frequency translation module) now called the SWM(single wire multiswitch) is an NAS part. The HR-20 is MFH-2 ready. The new receivers will be the D-12, H-21 and R-16 due later this year.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

JosephDrums said:


> Greetings, the FTM(frequency translation module) now called the SWM(single wire multiswitch) is an NAS part. The HR-20 is MFH-2 ready. The new receivers will be the D-12, H-21 and R-16 due later this year.


It has been generally posted that the H20 has the FTM/SWM hardware required, but is waiting a software upgrade before it will work. Ditto the D12.

We have yet to see (here) anything conclusive regarding either an H21, or an R16 (which I presume will be an SWM capable R15).

Carl


----------



## sattec (May 28, 2004)

JosephDrums said:


> Greetings, the FTM(frequency translation module) now called the SWM(single wire multiswitch) is an NAS part. The HR-20 is MFH-2 ready. The new receivers will be the D-12, H-21 and R-16 due later this year.


Thanks Joseph......mfh-2 does not require a cpe device, correct Joseph?


----------



## gadgetfreaky (Jul 5, 2007)

Any news on when this might be deployed? Specifically for ATT.


----------



## jash (Sep 2, 2007)

hey guys,

i read the thread and didn't see anything about updated eta's for being able to stack these in an mdu. any news?

thank you.

94107


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

sattec said:


> Thanks Joseph......mfh-2 does not require a cpe device, correct Joseph?


Looks to be correct--other than the updated receivers that is. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jash said:


> hey guys,
> 
> i read the thread and didn't see anything about updated eta's for being able to stack these in an mdu. any news?
> 
> ...


Welcome to the forums, jash! :welcome_s

Not that I have heard yet.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jash (Sep 2, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Welcome to the forums, jash! :welcome_s
> 
> Not that I have heard yet.
> 
> ...


thanks tom

i just got word a prototype is in the works and expected in the next 3 months


----------



## redpeppers (Dec 16, 2006)

Typical one wire solutions use a MFH-1 system which can be used with fiber or RF infrastrucures. It is very costly for a complex and we have multiple sysyems like this deployed. Also MFH-1 dies not support new KA band signals onlu MFH-2 which is on the verge of deployment and distrubution. Also MFH-3 which is IP based network supposts KA band signals but good luck finding one because this is still a work in progress.


----------

