# When one SWiM isn't enough



## veryoldschool

There's a good article about connecting more than one switch/SWiM here: http://forums.solidsignal.com/showthread.php/336-WHITE-PAPER-More-than-16-tuners-in-the-home

One of the more advanced is:










To aid in planning losses and layouts before committing to this, here is a calculator that you can load coax lengths to get an idea of the DECA loss.
This works best with the longest coax connected to the same splitter, since the signal only needs to go through one splitter between the nodes.
Long runs on one splitter do effect the maximum length of other splitter runs.

View attachment 20642


----------



## RobTabor

Great info, Thanks for sharing


----------



## veryoldschool

My diplexer testing showed that you can combine two SWM8, by using only one output of each and a coax between the two diplexers.
Using this on a SWiM-16 has 5 dB less loss than the internal DECA crossover of the -16.
When you're having very long coax runs, the SWiM levels can be amplified before the diplexer, and bridging two together gives a 5 dB boost to the DECA.
Currently this is the only method to have Whole Home over very long coax runs.

When you need to combine more than two, the 4-way splitter is needed and its loss changes the 5 dB less, to 5 dB more, but lets 3 & 4 be combined.
Combining the RF DECA signals also means the whole network status gets tested by the H/HR-24 [and up] receivers with internal DECA, when running a system test. Should an error be displayed, you can run the advanced DECA testing and narrow down the node path causing it.

You can combine with CCKs, but you then need to run tests on each and can't test the bridging through the router.


----------



## David Ortiz

Yes, thanks for sharing, VOS. Great info! I'm surprised they didn't mention the 16 node limit for the DECA cloud.


----------



## veryoldschool

David Ortiz said:


> Yes, thanks for sharing, VOS. Great info! I'm surprised they didn't mention the 16 node limit for the DECA cloud.


"They" was me, and yes, only this configuration would push the 16 node limit.


----------



## veryoldschool

This is the approved two SWiM-16 setup:


----------



## ljg1118

Great article but unless I missed something there are two directv issues that there is no current work around for:

1)Seeing more than 8 DVR's 
2)Seeing DVR's on seperate SWiM 16's.

Any help with this is appreciated


----------



## veryoldschool

ljg1118 said:


> Great article but unless I missed something there are two directv issues that there is no current work around for:
> 
> 1)Seeing more than 8 DVR's
> 2)Seeing DVR's on seperate SWiM 16's.
> 
> Any help with this is appreciated



I think it may be 10, but yes the software has yet to support a lot of DVRs.
Post 1 combines the SWiM-16s to see those on the other SWiM-16.
Two CCKs does the same thing, but bridges through the router.


----------



## ljg1118

Thanks VOS:

Is there any way to select which 8-10 DVR's are selected/seen?


----------



## veryoldschool

ljg1118 said:


> Thanks VOS:
> 
> Is there any way to select which 8-10 DVR's are selected/seen?


Any DVR connected can select if it's shared or not.
Things seem to only get "flaky" above the limit.

It would be nice if there was an option to select which clients a DVR could be shared with, but there isn't any sign that this will come.


----------



## ljg1118

Yup, I am over the limit and certain Dvr's can't see certain clients....


----------



## fluffybear

veryoldschool said:


> This is the approved two SWiM-16 setup:


Is this actually DirecTV-approved?

When DirecTV came out recently on a service call, The tech said this type of hook-up was not approved and insisted on installing a SWiM Expander.

I realize the SWiM Expander is doing the same exact thing as above (just in smaller neater package) but he would not hear of it and had me speak with a supervisor who said the same thing..


----------



## veryoldschool

fluffybear said:


> Is this actually DirecTV-approved?
> 
> When DirecTV came out recently on a service call, The tech said this type of hook-up was not approved and insisted on installing a SWiM Expander.
> 
> I realize the SWiM Expander is doing the same exact thing as above (just in smaller neater package) but he would not hear of it and had me speak with a supervisor who said the same thing..


Without giving the name of the creator of this doc away, "I will say" it was done with full knowledge and acceptance of DirecTV before publishing.


----------



## lugnutathome

I've had this deployment for several years now. Starting with dual SWM8s, now a 16 and an 8 and likely in the future dual 16s. This setup was as directed by the Sonoradesign engineer and implemented by a local AV specialist house that did such work. This also follows the form used for commercial installs.

At least back then the SWM expander piled the SWMs in a neat stack preventing adequate cooling around both SWM units leading to premature failures. I haven't followed the expanders of current day, that issue may now be moot.

The residential installers may not know what the commercial side standards are nor have they dealt with the heat issues and may be following an old bulletin or hallucination, or whatever.

I would not accept the expander myself.

Don "those SWM units get all hot and bothered on their own" Bolton



fluffybear said:


> Is this actually DirecTV-approved?
> 
> When DirecTV came out recently on a service call, The tech said this type of hook-up was not approved and insisted on installing a SWiM Expander.
> 
> I realize the SWiM Expander is doing the same exact thing as above (just in smaller neater package) but he would not hear of it and had me speak with a supervisor who said the same thing..


----------



## veryoldschool

lugnutathome said:


> I would not accept the expander myself.
> 
> Don "those SWM units get all hot and bothered on their own" Bolton


Given how "warm" the SWiM-16s get, neither would I.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

The Sonora SWME2 puts the switches on opposite sides of each other. The SWME4 stacks them, but really people aren't stacking SWM8s like they used to, with the SWM16 out there.

Now if you're really hardcore, there's this little commercial bit.

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=FMC-6&d=DIRECTV-FMC-6-6-Slot-MFH2-Distribution-Chassis-(FMC-6)

If you absolutely, positively, need 48 tuners in your house, accept no substitutions :lol:


----------



## carl6

Stuart Sweet said:


> If you absolutely, positively, need 48 tuners in your house, accept no substitutions :lol:


And it can be easily cascaded for future growth :eek2:


----------



## fluffybear

carl6 said:


> And it can be easily cascaded for future growth :eek2:


and I'm sure there are a few people in this forum who have already done that..


----------



## Ghengis

VOS,
It thought you could daisy chain SWM16's by going from the 4 legacy ports on the first to the sat in ports on the second, is that correct? or do I absolutely need the splitters?

Dave


----------



## veryoldschool

Ghengis said:


> VOS,
> It thought you could daisy chain SWM16's by going from the 4 legacy ports on the first to the sat in ports on the second, is that correct? or do I absolutely need the splitters?
> 
> Dave


After some testing, it was found the loss to the legacy ports was over 10 dB, which puts the second SWiM in a compromising situation for rainfade.

The choices are to balance the loss to both with splitters that may be only 6 dB, or to use an amp between the SWiMs like this:


----------



## Ghengis

Thanks. Do you think the 4splitters or the amp is a better solution?


----------



## veryoldschool

Ghengis said:


> 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".


----------



## Ghengis

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.

Dave


----------



## veryoldschool

Ghengis said:


> 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.
> 
> Dave


This worked out well for someone who cascaded -16s that were about 50' apart.


----------



## Groundhog45

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.


----------



## veryoldschool

Groundhog45 said:


> 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.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

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?


----------



## veryoldschool

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.


----------



## gpauljr

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?


----------



## veryoldschool

gpauljr said:


> 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.


----------



## gpauljr

Thank you.


----------



## dminches

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## dennisj00

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.


----------



## dminches

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. 

Thanks.


----------



## ljg1118

ljg1118 said:


> Great article but unless I missed something there are two directv issues that there is no current work around for:
> 
> 1)Seeing more than 8 DVR's
> 2)Seeing DVR's on seperate SWiM 16's.
> 
> Any help with this is appreciated


Is there any current work around for issue 1?


----------



## ljg1118

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?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

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.


----------



## ljg1118

Stuart:

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....


----------



## DBSNewbie

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.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

ljg1118 said:


> Stuart:
> 
> 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....


Put receivers on the same splitter and put a band stop filter between the splitter and the swm.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

veryoldschool said:


> There's a good article about connecting more than one switch/SWiM here: http://forums.solidsignal.com/showthread.php/336-WHITE-PAPER-More-than-16-tuners-in-the-home
> 
> One of the more advanced is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To aid in planning losses and layouts before committing to this, here is a calculator that you can load coax lengths to get an idea of the DECA loss.
> This works best with the longest coax connected to the same splitter, since the signal only needs to go through one splitter between the nodes.
> Long runs on one splitter do effect the maximum length of other splitter runs.
> 
> View attachment 29602


In the jpg shown in post #1 (and above), if one had a position open on the 4 way splitters, couldn't you just interconnect the SWiM clouds from that point instead of using the 4 additional 850-2150s, which in theory would result in less signal loss?


----------



## veryoldschool

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> In the jpg shown in post #1 (and above), if one had a position open on the 4 way splitters, couldn't you just interconnect the SWiM clouds from that point instead of using the 4 additional 850-2150s, which in theory would result in less signal loss?


Absolutely Not.

Combining two SWiMs without using diplexers causes the two SWiMs to interact, "in very bad ways". If you don't use the correct diplexers this has happened too.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> Absolutely Not.
> 
> Combining two SWiMs without using diplexers causes the two SWiMs to interact, "in very bad ways". *If you don't use the correct diplexers this has happened too.*


This is my main concern as I'm considering reducing losses on my setup through both changing out my two 8-way splitters on each leg of the SWiM-16 from the original install for two 4-ways, as well as bypassing the internal DECA crossover on the -16 with two cross-connected diplexers.

However dielray once told me to be careful to use the right dipelxers, particularly in regard to their ability to suppress any leakage of the 2.3 MHz SWiM control signal to the OTA ports which the DECA signals are using wreaking havoc with the alternate SWiM-8 circuit.

Was considering this one by Sonora DA;










Sonora SWM/CATV Horizontal Case (SD SWMD2)


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> This is my main concern as I'm considering reducing losses on my setup through both changing out my two 8-way splitters on each leg of the SWiM-16 from the original install for two 4-ways, as well as bypassing the internal DECA crossover on the -16 with two cross-connected diplexers.
> 
> However dielray once told me to be careful to use the right dipelxers, particularly in regard to their ability to suppress any leakage of the 2.3 MHz SWiM control signal to the OTA ports which the DECA signals are using wreaking havoc with the alternate SWiM-8 circuit.
> 
> Was considering this one by Sonora DA;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sonora SWM/CATV Horizontal Case (SD SWMD2)


The *NAS STD-9501M *is $6 and is known to work, while the Sonora is $10 and "should work".


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> The *NAS STD-9501M *is $6 and is known to work, while the Sonora is $10 and "should work".


Well the one in the photo is Sonora's SD-SWMD2 for $5.40 each (at Satprotv anyway). Are you referring to their SD-SWMD3 from Solid Signal for $10.99?










Thought that one would be unnecessary overkill for double the price.


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Well the one in the photo is Sonora's SD-SWMD2 for $5.40 each (at Satprotv anyway). Are you referring to their SD-SWMD3 from Solid Signal for $10.99?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought that one would be unnecessary overkill for double the price.


SS lists the SD-SWMD2 at $10.
If the SD-SWMD1 was still available it would be a better choice, which leaves the SD-SWMD3 @ $11 as the only choice from Sonora.

The NAS diplexer is the only one that has been tested in this configuration.

Sonora "may" have a product that works, but without testing, I won't say they do.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> SS lists the SD-SWMD2 at $10.
> If the SD-SWMD1 was still available it would be a better choice, which leaves the SD-SWMD3 @ $11 as the only choice from Sonora.
> 
> The NAS diplexer is the only one that has been tested in this configuration.
> 
> Sonora "may" have a product that works, but without testing, I won't say they do.


Though I must say that after looking at this illustration from Sonora DA, I'm not sure I want to spend some $22.00 on these expensive diplexers if all I can expect is around a modest 3 db of gain (-7 to -4 db) through bypassing the internal DECA crossover bridge of the SWiM-16 with these diplexers.










Is that about the same gain I can expect with the NAS diplexers?


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Though I must say that after looking at this illustration from Sonora DA, I'm not sure I want to spend some $22.00 on these expensive diplexers if all I can expect is around a modest 3 db of gain (-7 to -4 db) through bypassing the internal DECA crossover bridge of the SWiM-16 with these diplexers.
> 
> Is that about the same gain I can expect with the NAS diplexers?


The crossover has about 6 dB loss, and the NAS when in bridging mode, has about 1 dB, so there's a 5 dB "gain" for DECA.
When you move to combining two SWiM-16s, with a 4-way, the "plus" 5 dB drops to -5 dB due to the 4-way loss.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> The crossover has about 6 dB loss, and the NAS when in bridging mode, has about 1 dB, so there's a 5 dB "gain" for DECA.
> When you move to combining two SWiM-16s, with a 4-way, the "plus" 5 dB drops to -5 dB due to the 4-way loss.


Ok;

I once experimentally measured the loss of the -16 internal crossover, and it was indeed about -6 db, but I was simply using Sonora's quoted figure of -7 db anyhow in case I made an error since they are the experts with the professional test equipment.


----------



## ndole

veryoldschool said:


> Absolutely Not.
> 
> Combining two SWiMs without using diplexers causes the two SWiMs to interact, "in very bad ways". *If you don't use the correct diplexers this has happened too.*


I can attest to that :lol:
Spend the money on the correct diplexers.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

ndole;3195776 said:


> I can attest to that :lol:
> Spend the money on the correct diplexers.


We never did get to see the back of that setup
:lol:


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> Ok;
> 
> I once experimentally measured the loss of the -16 internal crossover, and it was indeed about -6 db, but I was simply using Sonora's quoted figure of -7 db anyhow in case I made an error since they are the experts with the professional test equipment.


Just curious: is SWiM signal going so high - 1.84 GHz ?


----------



## veryoldschool

P Smith said:


> Just curious: is SWiM signal going so high - 1.84 GHz ?


yes.
9 100 MHz "channels" starting just below 1 GHz.


----------



## HoTat2

veryoldschool said:


> yes.
> 9 *100 MHz* "channels" starting just below 1 GHz.


102 MHz to be exact. 

But don't know why the seemingly trivial additional 2 MHz is for though.


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> ...


[side note/question] Do you ever read PMs?


----------



## P Smith

HoTat2 said:


> 102 MHz to be exact.
> 
> But don't know why the seemingly trivial additional 2 MHz is for though.


perhaps 2 MHz is guard gap, and one "channel" taking up to 100 MHz ?


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> perhaps 2 MHz is guard gap, and one "channel" taking up to 100 MHz ?


That's what I once considered P. Smith

But with the satellite transponders 24, 36, and 62.5 MHz wide, there would seem to be a lot of remaining space from 100 MHz for guard bands without the need for an another 2 MHz.


----------



## P Smith

We need to know SWiM type of modulation (forget about tpns with 62.5 MHZ width - no one tuner H/HR and dish STBs support it !); is it QAM-1024 ?


----------



## veryoldschool

P Smith said:


> We need to know SWiM type of modulation.


"It would seem" to be just what the tps use and this is merely a frequency shift.


----------



## P Smith

I could make sweeps with spectrum analyzer and post them here, if someone will throw away "old" SWiM LNBF or SWM-16 (to connect it to my AU-9 LNBF)  ...


----------



## veryoldschool

P Smith said:


> I could make sweeps with spectrum analyzer and post them here, if someone will throw away "old" SWiM LNBF or SWM-16 (to connect it to my AU-9 LNBF)  ...


I might have a spare SWiM LNB to lend but I want pictures. :lol:


----------



## P Smith

I promised !


----------



## AntAltMike

Several years ago, someone posted supposedly "exact" SWM center frequencies, and they actually had digits to the right of the decimal point, so if that post was accurate ( and I recall it was from a regular contributor here), then describing the spacing as 102 MHz is "more exact" than is calling it 100 MHz spacing, but it is not absolutely exact.

I use a field-grade portable spectrum analyzer with an 8 MHz wide bandwidth when I infrequently service SWM systems. Unfortunately, the displayed wave form is the intermediate frequency waveform that is the composite of the frequency shifted transponder signal and the local oscillator, so I can't tell much of anything by looking at one.

Because of the AGC, I can't even peak a dish that way. I have to remove the SWM and temporarily install a WB or whatever those LNBs are popularly called, peak the dish, and then reinstall the SWM.

I remember a few years ago seeing that some of the Ka band transponder center frequencies posted on Lyngsat were spaced further apart than were others, so if anyone with a spectrum analyzer on his hands takes it upon himself to first determine which programs are carried on which transponders and then selects programs from different width transponders and then looks at and compares the shapes of the different SWM intermediate frequency waveforms, he might learn something useful, or he might find that the narrowly loaded ones and more widely loaded ones look about the same on the spectrum analyzer screen because the waveform is overwhelmingly shaped by the local oscillator component of it.

Insofar as picking 102 versus 100 MHz for spacing is concerned, since DirecTV has that IF bandwidth available and since it is not artificially constricted in its engineering by any round decimal values, they may well have done some complex engineering analysis regarding the development of intermodulation byproducts and have determined that within the bandwith parameters that they have, that 102 MHs spacing is simply optimal for minimizing them. I have previously been told that the decisions to invert the upper L-band intermediate frequencies and the decision that NAS had made in its earlier versions of multisatellite destackers to use a different frequency offset than DirecTV favored was based on such engineering considerations.


----------



## veryoldschool

Might be time to start up another thread as this thread is about using more than one SWiM and ways to combine the DECA signals between them.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

ndole said:


> I can attest to that :lol:
> Spend the money on the correct diplexers.


I have 4 NAS here that I previously ordered. Just trying to grasp why they are needed if I have an extra leg on the 4 port splitter to take a feed off of and combine. As thus, it has nothing to do with costs. Just seems that taking the diplexer out of the equation would improve signal loss.

Also, fwiw, the SWiM32 seems to be running much cooler than the SWiM16s that were replaced. In Air Conditioned room where the SWiM16s were measured at 116F via a Fluke IR Thermometer, the SWiM32 is only running 94F. Its unknown whether this is a result of larger surface area, the different supplier or the fact that I am not powering the LNBs through the SWM32s (it would seem that might generate some internal heat in a SWM8 or SWM16). Whatever the reason, its 22F cooler.

As VOS noted on another thread (somewhere on site), that still does not answer questions about life expectancy, but I would hope lower heat = longer life.


----------



## HoTat2

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I have 4 NAS here that I previously ordered. Just trying to grasp why they are needed if I have an extra leg on the 4 port splitter to take a feed off of and combine. As thus, it has nothing to do with costs. Just seems that taking the diplexer out of the equation would improve signal loss. ...


The diplexers are necessary, in fact indispensable for this application, to separate and isolate the SWiM satellite signal paths from the DECA (MoCA) network signal paths.

They allow each of the four SWiM-8 circuits (two SWiM-16s) comprising 9 RF carriers + a 2.3 MHz control signal to remain confined to one of four isolated signal paths, while the paths for the DECA network signals are combined into one overall cloud.


----------



## veryoldschool

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Just trying to grasp why they are needed if I have an extra leg on the 4 port splitter to take a feed off of and combine. Just seems that taking the diplexer out of the equation would improve signal loss.


Add a 475-625 MHz bandpass filter to this and it would work.

Actually this isn't quite true either.

You could connect the NAS diplexer to splitters on each of the SWiM-16s and terminate the unused port. This would bridge the DECA between the two, but the losses would mean you couldn't go from one SWiM output through the crossover to the other output and then do the same on the other SWiM-16.
The only combination that would work would be using only 2-way splitters and keeping the coax runs no longer than 50'


----------



## Robster138

Very awesome!


----------



## ljg1118

Is there currently any workaround to the limit of 10 Clients per DVR, or a work around to select which clients a DVR can be shared with?


----------



## Lord Vader

veryoldschool said:


> This is the approved two SWiM-16 setup:


Hey, VOS, for those who have Whole Home using DECA, which schematic would be recommended? The above one or the one here:










I would think the one with Whole Home DECA illustrated; however, I don't see where the 4 cables from the dish would go.


----------



## peds48

I am not VOS, but the latter would be recommended when more than one SWM is used. the sat input would be the same as you have now. from the dish to the 6x8 to the two SWM16s


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Vader

I guess what I am trying to figure out is where exactly would my 6x8 be placed in that above (the latter one) schematic?


----------



## peds48

Lord Vader said:


> I guess what I am trying to figure out is where exactly would my 6x8 be placed in that above (the latter one) schematic?


Nothing would change as how you are feeding the SWM16s. Only thing that would change is that you would remove the CCKs and replaced the LAN connection with one CCK and the diplexers

IIRC, when this came about, VOS recommended to use this set up but you decided to give it a go and use what you had at the time which was the 6x8 and the 2 CCKs. I actually like using the 6x8 instead of the power passing splitters as there is no loss compared to using splitters. the reason why DirecTV likes the splitters better is cost.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Vader

The reason I resurrected this is because maybe, just maybe, I could rewire the whole setup to match the schematic and possibly resolve my Whole Home connectivity issues with my Genie and HR22. Of course, that could very well not have any relevance to my problem. 

So, to see if understand you correctly, because I have the 6x8, I wouldn't even need the 4 splitters that are shown in the schematics above, right? In other words, was I suggesting something that would be unnecessarily redundant?


----------



## peds48

On the las t schematic it shows 4 NAS diplexers that you would need to feed the single BroadBand DECA to all of the 4 SMW16s outputs (2 outposts on each switch). The splitters going to the boxes don't necessarily have to be 4 ways. If you have 2 ways and 8 ways that would work as well.

Pretty much what you would be re-wiring is AFTER the SWM16s, nothing before them gets touched.


----------



## Lord Vader

Well, I have 5 of the 4-ways, so I might as well use them. It looks like a very short coax runs from each of the 4 diplexers to the 4-ways, right?


----------



## peds48

Lord Vader said:


> Well, I have 5 of the 4-ways, so I might as well use them. It looks like a very short coax runs from each of the 4 diplexers to the 4-ways, right?


if you install the diplexers right by the SWM16s then you would need very short coax jumpers.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Vader

The two SWM16s are on the exterior of the building on my balcony--easily accessible by me, but the diplexers would have to go right below them according to what I just observed when looking at the SWM16s.


----------



## inkahauts

Vader I am basically using this setup myself and it is really nice. Especially since it allows me to see all deca signal strength screens. With that said how many tuners in your system now? And how many actual boxes as well? Might be able to go to the new swim lnb. It does 21 tuners off one line. Super simplifies a lot of things for many.


----------



## Lord Vader

Total number of tuners = 21 among 9 boxes (if my late night memory is correct). 

Tell me more about this new lnb. 

Keep in mind that because I ended up going with a 6x8 multiswitch cascading to two SWM16s, I ditched my previous dish setup of a single-wire SWM and went to a legacy lnb setup: 4 cables from the dish into the 6x8.


----------



## peds48

Lord Vader said:


> Total number of tuners = 21 among 9 boxes (if my late night memory is correct).
> 
> Tell me more about this new lnb.
> 
> Keep in mind that because I ended up going with a 6x8 multiswitch cascading to two SWM16s, I ditched my previous dish setup of a single-wire SWM and went to a legacy lnb setup: 4 cables from the dish into the 6x8.


There is a new LNB that is only available on eBay now since DirecTV has not release it yet and there is no word of when. but basically is the same as the SWM13 but with 21 tuner support. if you really have 21 tuners, this LNB will fit like a glove. you would only need one CCK to connect all those tuners to the internet.

Install would be pretty simple. remove the legacy port LNB, 6x8, SW16. and connect all your receivers to that single line via SWM splitters

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Lord Vader

Sounds remarkably convenient and simple. Which splitters do you recommend--the ones I mentioned earlier that I have?


----------



## peds48

with 9 receivers plus a CCK, I would connect the 8 longer runs to the 8 way and use a 2 way in the receiver near the CCK plus a two way in one of the receivers with the shortest run.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

And it would only require one power inserted rated at the 21v. So that's a bunch less power too.


----------



## inkahauts

You have to make sure it's the right one though. It's got a 2 in the model for second generation. I can't post a link right now I'm mobile.


----------



## Lord Vader

It's the gray power inserter. The black ones aren't strong enough.


----------



## Lord Vader

peds48 said:


> with 9 receivers plus a CCK, I would connect the 8 longer runs to the 8 way and use a 2 way in the receiver near the CCK plus a two way in one of the receivers with the shortest run.
> 
> Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


I don't have any 8-way ones, but I do have plenty of 4-way ones available.


----------



## peds48

Then your best bet is to cascade two 4 ways from a 4 way. connect the longest 2 runs to the 2 outputs of the first 4 way. then connect the remaining 8 runs to the cascaded 4 ways


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick

Lord Vader said:


> I don't have any 8-way ones, but I do have plenty of 4-way ones available.


You can get an 8-way on ebay for ~$5.00 and a 2-way for $4 (including shipping). If you're buying a new LNB at ebay anyway, you may as well spend an extra $9 at the same time and get the best signal possible.


----------



## Lord Vader

While I can get them elsewhere cheaper, I believe y'all are talking about this one, correct?

http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?mc=02&p=SPLIT8MRV&d=DIRECTV-Satellite-8Way-Wide-Band-MRV-Compatible-Splitter(SPLIT8MRV)&c=Satellite%20Splitters&sku=874409002084


----------



## Lord Vader

BTW, what's the model number of this new 21-tuner capable SWM lnb? I obviously won't have to worry about all the aforementioned suggestions until I obtained this new lnb anyway.


----------



## WestDC

Why not get one of "new" GEN.2" DSWM LNBS - and Remove your Smw 16's hook everything using a 2way smw spliter (from the lnb singel wire) the two outs connect- 2 of the 8 swm (link you posted) it will handel 21 tuners getting rid of your 6x8 and both swm-16's 

Just a suggestion.

Link says 13 tuner However it will support 21 tuners 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEWEST-DIRECTV-GEN-2-DSWM-LNB-SWM3-13-TUNER-LNB-3D2LNBR0-02-FAST-SHIP-/131637084569

Extra reading http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/213993-first-look-swm-13-lnb/page-23#entry3397300


----------



## Bill Broderick

WestDC said:


> Why not get one of "new" GEN.2" DSWM LNBS - and Remove your Smw 16's hook everything using a 2way smw spliter (from the lnb singel wire) the two outs connect- 2 of the 8 swm (link you posted) it will handel 21 tuners getting rid of your 6x8 and both swm-16's
> 
> Just a suggestion.
> 
> Link says 13 tuner However it will support 21 tuners
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEWEST-DIRECTV-GEN-2-DSWM-LNB-SWM3-13-TUNER-LNB-3D2LNBR0-02-FAST-SHIP-/131637084569
> 
> Extra reading http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/213993-first-look-swm-13-lnb/page-23#entry3397300


You must have skipped ahead before reading all of the posts. Peds48 suggested that at 9:00 this morning and that's the methodology that this conversation has morphed into. However, you unknowingly answered Lord Vader's most recent question regarding the model number of this LNB, when you posted your link.


----------



## Bill Broderick

Lord Vader said:


> While I can get them elsewhere cheaper, I believe y'all are talking about this one, correct?
> 
> http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?mc=02&p=SPLIT8MRV&d=DIRECTV-Satellite-8Way-Wide-Band-MRV-Compatible-Splitter(SPLIT8MRV)&c=Satellite%20Splitters&sku=874409002084


Yes. That's the one.



Lord Vader said:


> BTW, what's the model number of this new 21-tuner capable SWM lnb? I obviously won't have to worry about all the aforementioned suggestions until I obtained this new lnb anyway.


I believe that the link that WestDC provided above is for the specific ebay item/seller that pretty much everyone here who has bought one, has used so far. According to that link the model number is 3D3LNBR0-02. Although the ebay auction lists the item as being a 13 tuner SWM, people here have tested it to actually support up to 21 tuners.


----------



## Lord Vader

Thanks, y'all.


----------



## inkahauts

Bill Broderick said:


> You must have skipped ahead before reading all of the posts. Peds48 suggested that at 9:00 this morning and that's the methodology that this conversation has morphed into. However, you unknowingly answered Lord Vader's most recent question regarding the model number of this LNB, when you posted your link.


Yeah, peds suggested it two posts after I did... 

I really love how much cleaner a system can potentially be with these new lnbs.


----------



## Lord Vader

It does appear to make everything much easier. Per the other thread in which I am participating, I just have to make sure I understand how to get 9 receivers with DECA all properly connected. :righton:


----------



## inkahauts

Here's a schematic for ya. It's what peds suggests, although there is one other option, which would be to not use a DIRECTV Wired Broadband Internet Connection Kit and just plug the Ethernet cord into the back of the genie itself. Would save y one 2 way splitter.


----------



## Lord Vader

That sure does make it look very easy--almost too easy!

BTW, no power inserter needed anywhere? Currently I'm using at least two of the gray ones: one on each SWM16. Also, does it matter from which DVR I connect the DECA adapter (a.k.a. CCK)? In the living room are located the Genie and 4 HD DVRs as well as the cable/modem into which I'd like to connect the CCK. The other receivers are on other sides of the abode. 

I think I now will have something on which to work during my Christmas break.


----------



## dennisj00

Lord Vader said:


> That sure does make it look very easy--almost too easy!
> 
> BTW, no power inserter needed anywhere? Currently I'm using at least two of the gray ones: one on each SWM16. Also, does it matter from which DVR I connect the DECA adapter (a.k.a. CCK)? In the living room are located the Genie and 4 HD DVRs as well as the cable/modem into which I'd like to connect the CCK. The other receivers are on other sides of the abode.
> 
> I think I now will have something on which to work during my Christmas break.


You do need a PI on the red power passing port and no, it doesn't matter which dvr is split to the CCK.


----------



## Bill Broderick

inkahauts said:


> Yeah, peds suggested it two posts after I did...


Sorry. I knew that someone had recommended it. I read posts backwards until I found the mention. I didn't realize that I needed to keep reading further.


----------



## peds48

dennisj00 said:


> You do need a PI on the red power passing port and no, it doesn't matter which dvr is split to the CCK.


Well in this case it kinda matters. Since you will be splitting after an 8 way you dont really want to split the longest run, unless the longest run happens to be very short. But as inky mentioned, lordvader could use the Genie as the CCK, avoiding the need to split.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

And yeah I forgot to put the pi in there. But as others said just off the red port or even before the splitter in the first place.


----------



## Lord Vader

peds48 said:


> Well in this case it kinda matters. Since you will be splitting after an 8 way you dont really want to split the longest run, unless the longest run happens to be very short. But as inky mentioned, lordvader could use the Genie as the CCK, avoiding the need to split.
> 
> Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


That's what I'll probably end up doing, because {a} the Genie would be located a good 30-40 feet away from the 8-way, and {b} it would eliminate the clutter of multiple current DECA thingies and their cords.

So, to make sure I understand it correctly, peds, I'd just connect en ethernet cable from the Genie's ethernet port directly to my cable modem/router, correct?


----------



## inkahauts

That's exactly right Vader. It's the only receiver they make that can do that by the way.


----------



## WestDC

Lord Vader said:


> That's what I'll probably end up doing, because {a} the Genie would be located a good 30-40 feet away from the 8-way, and {b} it would eliminate the clutter of multiple current DECA thingies and their cords.
> 
> So, to make sure I understand it correctly, peds, I'd just connect en ethernet cable from the Genie's ethernet port directly to my cable modem/router, correct?


DO not remove DECA's from any of your older receivers that require them (example) using the RJ45 from the genie -the genie internel deca does both -network & moco meaning your older recievers still will be getting the internet from the genie but it will be over sent over moco -RG6 using the DECA at each receiver.


----------



## Lord Vader

inkahauts said:


> Here's a schematic for ya. It's what peds suggests, although there is one other option, which would be to not use a DIRECTV Wired Broadband Internet Connection Kit and just plug the Ethernet cord into the back of the genie itself. Would save y one 2 way splitter.


In looking at this, I'm curious to check and see if I can alter this a bit for my setup. Specifically, two of my receivers are on opposite ends of the building, so I couldn't run all of the 8-way's cables in one direction. The 8-way splitter will be near the remaining receivers that are confined to my home theater area. I can't run another cable from that 8-way to the remaining two, so what I'm wondering is how to have the single line from the SWM13 branch off to the two other receivers. Can I have the dish's single cable run to a 2-way splitter, then have one of those cables go to the remaining two receivers, which are already connected via another 2-way down the line (because they're in separate rooms), and another cable go from the 2-way to the 8-way that will be near the other remaining receivers?

I hope I haven't confused anyone by this question.

It would go something like this:

-------> 8-way -------> 5 receivers
|
|
SWM13 ------> 2-way ------|
| receiver
| /
--------> 2-way ------ 
\
receiver

BTW, if this would work but would require an additional power inserter down the line, I do have enough of those, so having to use a second one wouldn't be a problem.

Thoughts? Comments? Laughs?


----------



## thefoyboy

I was going to go down this road but since I have a 4k tv and just received the 54 to replace my 34 today. I think I am going to wait until next summer when a rumored new lnb for 4k service is supposed to debut based on everything I hear mentioned on here and other sites. Does that seem to mesh with what the experts on here are hearing?


----------



## peds48

thefoyboy said:


> I was going to go down this road but since I have a 4k tv and just received the 54 to replace my 34 today. I think I am going to wait until next summer when a rumored new lnb for 4k service is supposed to debut based on everything I hear mentioned on here and other sites. Does that seem to mesh with what the experts on here are hearing?


Well, the reverse band LNB is currently being installed in test markets right now. As far as when in rolling out nationally, that is unknown.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## ljg1118

I currently have my 15 HDR DVR's connected as suggested on first page with 2 - 16 Swim, and 2 DECABB1MR0-01 Broad band adapters.I fully understand that the HDDVR's on one Swim can't see or communicate with HDDRR's on the Second Swim. I am having issues with HD DVR's that can see the playlist of another HDDVR but when played I receive the error message "We are having trouble accessing this program, would you like to try again". This happens each time I try and for all content from the shared HDDVR. It is not happening with all home shared content only from some HD DVR's to other HD DVR's. I have tried resetting all HD DVR's but this has not helped. Any further advice appreciated


----------



## slice1900

ljg1118 said:


> I currently have my 15 HDR DVR's connected as suggested on first page with 2 - 16 Swim, and 2 DECABB1MR0-01 Broad band adapters.I fully understand that the HDDVR's on one Swim can't see or communicate with HDDRR's on the Second Swim. I am having issues with HD DVR's that can see the playlist of another HDDVR but when played I receive the error message "We are having trouble accessing this program, would you like to try again". This happens each time I try and for all content from the shared HDDVR. It is not happening with all home shared content only from some HD DVR's to other HD DVR's. I have tried resetting all HD DVR's but this has not helped. Any further advice appreciated


From what I've seen, when you get much above 10 DVRs playlist sharing doesn't work well. 15 is too many. Is there any way you can isolate a few of them onto their own DECA network? I assume with 15 you probably have some in a guest room / guest house type situation where they really don't need to see/share their playlists. There is one guy here who has 12 DVRs sharing but he had to have some help from others to even get that working.


----------

