# Connecting swm and pi options?



## mugz (Aug 16, 2010)

The "rough" drawings show two wiring options. Option 1 is the way installer completed and seems to be working. Option 2 is recommended install by Kevin Ryan from dbstalk.com and a video he posted on youtube. Here is the link.




My question is which option is recommended? Thanks.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

Option 1 is not connected to the red port, so nothing will happen. 

If connected properly, I would do option 1 just because I don't like everything passing through the PI.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Concerning the first image...on the left.

The PI output needs to go to the "DC Pass" input, the red one, on the splitter...the farthest right.


----------



## mugz (Aug 16, 2010)

Thanks both for your input. You are correct, I did not draw the diagram accurately. Have made revisions. Please review and comment again. Thanks.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Option 2 is correct.  Do you have a SWMLine dish?


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Also - is that your actual splitter model or just a generic image?


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Either will work.


----------



## jpitlick (Apr 19, 2007)

Canis Lupus said:


> Option 2 is correct.  Do you have a SWMLine dish?


Is Option 1 any less valid than Option 2? Option 2 kind of defeats the purpose of having a splitter with a power passing leg.

I setup my SWM-8 using Option 1 somewhat arbitrarily because I didn't have room in my wiring box for the PI.


----------



## mugz (Aug 16, 2010)

Yes, I have an SL3S. The splitter in photo looks identical what I have. The photo is Model 4RO-03 mine is a 4RO-01. If I understand, both connections will work? Is one better than the other? Just to restate, the installer has it wired as in option 1. It would be very easy for me to rewire to option 2.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Either will work with no performance difference, but option 1 needs a termination on the unused port of the PI.


----------



## jpitlick (Apr 19, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Either will work with no performance difference, but option 1 needs a termination on the unused port of the PI.


...or a receiver/DVR.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Generally, Power Pass only becomes critical in situations where you need to send a cable to a receiver that is in front of the PI. If all of your receivers are after the PI, which was the OP's case, the importance of Power Pass becomes a non-issue.


----------



## mugz (Aug 16, 2010)

Thanks all for your help. I will leave it the way it is wired. Yes, there is a terminator installed on the unused PI connector bob.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Canis Lupus said:


> Generally, Power Pass only becomes critical in situations where you need to send a cable to a receiver that is in front of the PI. If all of your receivers are after the PI, which was the OP's case, the importance of Power Pass becomes a non-issue.


Look again...the OPs current install is option 1, with all IRDs "in front of" the PI. So, use of the the power pass port, on the PI leg, is needed.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

I see a thread every once in a while where there are issues and then someone moves the PI to another room and things clear up. That makes me suspect that sometimes PIs can be finicky about passing signal through them. You do drop a little voltage going through the splitter like that though, so it's give or take IMHO.

That said, I have MRV data running through mine with no issues.


----------



## mugz (Aug 16, 2010)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Look again...the OPs current install is option 1, with all IRDs "in front of" the PI. So, use of the the power pass port, on the PI leg, is needed.


Kansas, then is it your opinion I should be using option 2? I was hoping I was done with this issue.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mugz said:


> Kansas, then is it your opinion I should be using option 2? I was hoping I was done with this issue.


I'd call you "done" now.
I've got receivers in front of my PI and behind my PI and everything works.
From reading your posts, you should be fine.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

"Kansas Zephyr" said:


> Look again...the OPs current install is option 1, with all IRDs "in front of" the PI. So, use of the the power pass port, on the PI leg, is needed.


That's not what I see in the Option 2 revised diagram. Either way, as VOS points out, he's done. Is it working properly? Done.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Canis Lupus said:


> That's not what I see in the Option 2 revised diagram. Either way, as VOS points out, he's done. Is it working properly? Done.


Correct. I was ONLY referring to option 1.

The OP asked if it was OK (and it is, of course)...or if he needed to try option 2.

His first option 1 image (that was removed...and replaced by the OP) had the feed from the PI into a non-DC passing port of the splitter. After a question was raised...he then replaced it with the option 1 image you see now.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

mugz said:


> Kansas, then is it your opinion I should be using option 2? I was hoping I was done with this issue.


NO...you're fine. You are done.


----------



## mugz (Aug 16, 2010)

Thanks all. Lets kill this thread.


----------



## Canis Lupus (Oct 16, 2006)

Kansas Zephyr said:


> Correct. I was ONLY referring to option 1.
> 
> The OP asked if it was OK (and it is, of course)...or if he needed to try option 2.
> 
> ...


Ah OK I understand now about the revised images.  My confusion as well Kansas.


----------

