# DPP44 switch power insertion



## capt_ron (Nov 23, 2006)

The installer that put in my 1000+ and VIP622 a week ago saturday did not install the DPP44 with a power insertion. He said that the switch did not need to be powered unless there were two or more receivers and I only have a single 622. I have noticed some pixalation on several channels at times even with good signal strength (over 80 on 129). In researching the switch it states that the switch needs to be powered and I can't find any reference to the number of receivers. My question to the group is does the switch need to be powered and does the lack of a power insertion have and thing to do with the pixalation. The installer was a sub for dish and took the power insertion module with him. Should I call them back and insist that the power insertion module be installed? I do have some loss of signal with OTA going into the 622 that I did not have when the OTA antenna was hooked directly to the TV. I do believe that the tuners that dish uses are not as good as those that are installed on the new generation of plasmas.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

PM, Ron.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

FYI the pixelation that you saw could easily be from a signal drop on the 129 sat. If you look around here you'll see that a lot of us are having problems with the 129 sat. Every 30 - 45 minutes you get a pretty significant drop in signal strength, for me it's anywhere from 30 - 50 points on the signal meter. It only lasts for a minute or 2 then it comes back up. Could be that you saw the pixelation during one of those signal drops and by the time you checked your signal strength it was back up. It also seems to affect some transponders more than others. 

As for powering the DP44, I thought it had to be powered, but I know there are others out here that are not using the power inserter. I personally have mine powered but it is also running 3 receivers.


----------



## Cokeswigga (Jan 25, 2005)

For the past year I have been running the DPP 44 without the power inserter. 

They say its required, and another thread indicates that the current draw exceeds the limits, therefor the inserter is required.

I was using 3 Dish Pro recievers. After reading the other thread, I decided to hook up the inserter again.

There was no change in the signal strength with or without the receiver, but if it means that my receivers will not break down prematurely, then I guess its worth it.


----------



## gnm313-1 (Apr 24, 2005)

I ran mine without the power inserter for about 2 months. The result was a burnt cable. Lost reception one day. Traced the cables back and one was black at the connection coming into the house. It actually weakened and broke the copper and I lost connection.

I put the power inserter in the next day and haven't had trouble since.


----------



## Cokeswigga (Jan 25, 2005)

gnm313 said:


> I ran mine without the power inserter for about 2 months. The result was a burnt cable. Lost reception one day. Traced the cables back and one was black at the connection coming into the house. It actually weakened and broke the copper and I lost connection.
> 
> I put the power inserter in the next day and haven't had trouble since.


were you using RG-6 or RG-59?

I am using quad shielded RG-6

I have once again started using the inserter, But I used it for a year without any obivous problems.

But I sure as hell don't want my house burning down.

THe installer of the switch did inititally install the switch with the inserter


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

Call your installer and tell him to get his azz back to your house and not to leave with the power inserter.

For best results put the inserter on Port 1 and the receiver on port2.
For some unknown reason the 211's and 622's dont play nice on the inserter port.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

ssmith10pn said:


> For some unknown reason the 211's and 622's dont play nice on the inserter port.


Is this opinion or hearsay or experience? I've had my 622 connected to the inserter port without incident. It works just as well as the 622's connected to ports 2-4 respectively. Diplexing on port 1 is another story. Unlike other posters, reception of satellite signal is not possible without the power inserter connected to power my DPP44.


----------



## 7thton (Mar 16, 2005)

When my 622 was installed a couple of weeks ago, the installer did not hook up the power insterter for the DPP44. I did ask him to leave it though, and have it.

So, how do I hook this thing up?


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

> Is this opinion or hearsay or experience?


Experience.
Actually it was a 211 that would not pass a switch test while connected to port 1.
After conversing back and fourth with several installers on a Professional Forum I was told by some advanced installers that they were having problems with the 211 on port 1.
I lumped the 622 in with the 211 just to be safe because they have so much in common. Maybe a 622 will work fine on port 1 but a 211 definitely wont.


----------



## antivirus1 (Aug 15, 2007)

Im running 3 hd and now one is not picking up 119... could the port on the dpp 44 went bad... Which is port four ....I couldn move the inserter to that port and IRD to the 1st port... Or do i need to get a new switch..(DPP 44)


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

antivirus1 said:


> Im running 3 hd and now one is not picking up 119... could the port on the dpp 44 went bad... Which is port four ....I couldn move the inserter to that port and IRD to the 1st port... Or do i need to get a new switch..(DPP 44)


I suppose it's possible your DPP44 failed, but this would be the first time I personally have heard of one failing.
I think I'd look elsewhere, before calling it a bad switch.
Is your check-switch test failing on 119 for the receiver having the issue?
If you're going to switch ports on the DPP44, just switch 2 receivers, and see if the 119 failure follows to a different receiver.


----------



## antivirus1 (Aug 15, 2007)

Ken Green said:


> I suppose it's possible your DPP44 failed, but this would be the first time I personally have heard of one failing.
> I think I'd look elsewhere, before calling it a bad switch.
> Is your check-switch test failing on 119 for the receiver having the issue?
> If you're going to switch ports on the DPP44, just switch 2 receivers, and see if the 119 failure follows to a different receiver.


I switch port and the signal was good so i know its not the IRD...


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

Just to clear up a few things on the DPP 4x4 switch. They do fail, I have replaced 3 so far. Also, the power inserter's can fail. The power inserter must be on port 1. If you only have one receiver and the cable run is less than 100 feet the switch will work without the power inserter but I would not recommend it. I have seen 2 connected and the switch worked when the cable runs were less than 100 feet but when 1 of them was moved beyond 100 feet the receiver would have erratic results when a check switch was performed.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

Yes they do fail especially if they are exposed to heat. Mine was in the attic and only lasted a year.

Went to a Dish 1000.2 and never looked back.
211
622
625


----------

