Looks to me like it shows up in the fixed dish menu, but not the motor menu. Can't even use a Diseqc 1.0 switch with either type motor ( Diseqc 1.2 or USALS ). That needs to change.
Review of Manhattan RS-1933
- Thread starter Davage
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 382
- Views 87K
Looks to me like it shows up in the fixed dish menu, but not the motor menu. Can't even use a Diseqc 1.0 switch with either type motor ( Diseqc 1.2 or USALS ). That needs to change.
yeah its listed in the fixed. Its well documented that right now it wont work with a switch and motor at same time
Right now, my Solomend 800 can handle both my Cband Gbox and my USALS motor, with 22khz switching and Diseqc 1.0 and 1.1 switching . This is the 9/27/2010 software. The Manhattan is going to have to get to this point, clearly. Also clearly, we don't want the same kind of cycle we've seen with the Openbox series, that every new software improves something but degrades something else. I suspect this will take a few months .
Anyone have problems with tuning a signal after a blind scan has found it? Two feeds (not listed on TheList so not sure if safe to mention) in about the last week I've had this issue with. Blind scan finds it, locks it, writes it to memory, goes on to the rest of the polarity or satellite in blind scan mode. After the blind scan ends, no lock on a signal that was found in the blind scan. 24/7 services so it's not an occasional service that was found in blind scan and gone by the time the blind scan ended. Other channels lock fine when you channel up/down to other signals.
I've gone back another day on one of them and it popped right in. don't know if the one I came across a few minutes ago will pop in later today, tomorrow or whatever. Frequencies are different on each of them so it doesn't appear to be a single flawed frequency.
It's happened twice in hundreds of signal locks so it's not very common but it exists for whatever reason.
I've gone back another day on one of them and it popped right in. don't know if the one I came across a few minutes ago will pop in later today, tomorrow or whatever. Frequencies are different on each of them so it doesn't appear to be a single flawed frequency.
It's happened twice in hundreds of signal locks so it's not very common but it exists for whatever reason.
That was one of the first things I noticed.. For example on AMC-3 C-band, doing a blindsacn will lock in a transponder. After the scan there is no signal. What I did was go to tp list, and changed the frequency one up. Then it pops in. You are correct that it don't happen very often. But it is a quirk that can be annoying. It has been mentioned. I will pm you with the details.
That was one of the first things I noticed.. For example on AMC-3 C-band, doing a blindsacn will lock in a transponder. After the scan there is no signal. What I did was go to tp list, and changed the frequency one up. Then it pops in. You are correct that it don't happen very often. But it is a quirk that can be annoying. It has been mentioned. I will pm you with the details.
No PM needed. I know exactly what signal you are referring to because that was the first one I discussed that worked fine when I want back to AMC-3 a few days later.
Followup - Openbox S10 has the same issue on the same signal as my finding today that prompted the posting today. Does the Manhattan and Openbox tuners not have a reliable performance spec good for signals over symbol rate 30,000 or are they good for up to 45,000 SR? Tuner specs are not listed in the manual (at least the online version at the Manhattan site).
Your description makes me wonder if the tuner IS picking up the signal, but the underlying software is rejecting the signal as invalid, possibly because it's "out of parameters" . There is probably some sort of "validity check" in the software for SR values, to exclude anything that is really spurious.
Well this is encouraging to me that they have added 1.1 switches. This was the main ingredient that I asked for early on!
Thank You.
Of course I'd like motor control AND switches at the same time as everyone else has asked for, then I can start using my Manhattan the way I'd like to.
I just wanted to let people know that we have updates coming but we are refraining from posting them until we get secured sw (software) codes installed.
Some people want to load our proprietary sw onto other receivers. Now some of you can understand why we did not have RS-232 on the unit. Hacking is back with a vengeance.
The updates were suggested by the group, which they believed would be the most utilized. I believe they have lead a positive response and I greatly enjoy working with them. It was enjoyable to see people from all over North America that want to be part of something positive and worked so well together. It is really an inspiration. We will continue to upgrade the unit with updates if the unit is able to perform and it makes sense.
We never ever advertised DiSEqC 1.0 & 1.1. We have added 1.1 and changes need to be made to this from my understanding. DiSEqC 1.0 is being looked at, but do people really want or need this? I don't know, to what level of people want this. If only a few, the question needs to be asked, just a feature to have or is it very important and really needed.
When someone suggest a $79.00 MPEG-4 S2, Dolby AC3, ect.., box. That could happen, but to do business in this country, with insurance, taxes, royalties, warranty and overhead. I could sell direct to individuals and put the dealers out of business too! But where does that leave this industry. That is the question that I leave to you folks. So when a dealers sells an LNBF for 20 dollars and it costs him 5. Are you made at him for this mark-up? No, that is what takes him to support the product and to stay in business to support consumer base! This industry needs the dealer base folks!
The other clarification that I want to make, is this receiver is not built in the USA. We are a USA base company as Greg indicated. Would we like to build this receiver in the USA, yes, but we all know the answer to that, it is very difficult to be cost effective.
The future, yes and in discussions with local companies that can assemble this product and we can make the boards and chassis here as well. Would you support and pay more for a USA built receiver? You see the costs of a Direct TV or Dish receiver, why are they made off-shore? These companies certainly can afford it to make it here. They don’t even pay duties on their product. Why, just ask their congressman. Pay to play! Some of us cannot afford the bribery system or more than that, refuse to divulge in the illegal practice. Or to pay judges to perform their scare tactics.
But that is what it has come to. Write the tax code by congress that gets bribes from companies that in turn cheat the American people to support a corrupt system. Yet we advocate freedom and democracy around the world, except for our own country!
Take care and thank you for your support and suggestions. We greatly appreciate it!
Jeff Schumann
Some people want to load our proprietary sw onto other receivers. Now some of you can understand why we did not have RS-232 on the unit. Hacking is back with a vengeance.
The updates were suggested by the group, which they believed would be the most utilized. I believe they have lead a positive response and I greatly enjoy working with them. It was enjoyable to see people from all over North America that want to be part of something positive and worked so well together. It is really an inspiration. We will continue to upgrade the unit with updates if the unit is able to perform and it makes sense.
We never ever advertised DiSEqC 1.0 & 1.1. We have added 1.1 and changes need to be made to this from my understanding. DiSEqC 1.0 is being looked at, but do people really want or need this? I don't know, to what level of people want this. If only a few, the question needs to be asked, just a feature to have or is it very important and really needed.
When someone suggest a $79.00 MPEG-4 S2, Dolby AC3, ect.., box. That could happen, but to do business in this country, with insurance, taxes, royalties, warranty and overhead. I could sell direct to individuals and put the dealers out of business too! But where does that leave this industry. That is the question that I leave to you folks. So when a dealers sells an LNBF for 20 dollars and it costs him 5. Are you made at him for this mark-up? No, that is what takes him to support the product and to stay in business to support consumer base! This industry needs the dealer base folks!
The other clarification that I want to make, is this receiver is not built in the USA. We are a USA base company as Greg indicated. Would we like to build this receiver in the USA, yes, but we all know the answer to that, it is very difficult to be cost effective.
The future, yes and in discussions with local companies that can assemble this product and we can make the boards and chassis here as well. Would you support and pay more for a USA built receiver? You see the costs of a Direct TV or Dish receiver, why are they made off-shore? These companies certainly can afford it to make it here. They don’t even pay duties on their product. Why, just ask their congressman. Pay to play! Some of us cannot afford the bribery system or more than that, refuse to divulge in the illegal practice. Or to pay judges to perform their scare tactics.
But that is what it has come to. Write the tax code by congress that gets bribes from companies that in turn cheat the American people to support a corrupt system. Yet we advocate freedom and democracy around the world, except for our own country!
Take care and thank you for your support and suggestions. We greatly appreciate it!
Jeff Schumann
um....YEAH!!!
Jeff I hope you realize what DIseqc 1.0 does. It allows us to use a switch if there are more than one dish set up. Having a Diseqc 1.0 setup AND motor availability would be good too. Right now I cannot use my setup to the fullest extent because of this flaw. If I set it up for motor function then all the switch options are gone. I have 2 LNB's on my setup. A KU LNB and a DBS one. Yeah there isnt much on those DBS sats free but once in a while stuff does go in the clear. If I use it motorized I cannot access the DBS LNB due to the switch matrix being gone.
Diseqc 1.1 allows you to have more than 4 LNB's set up. When I had a "mack daddy" setup a few years ago I had a Toroidal T90 dish with 14 LNB's on it. That ran into 2 8x1 switches which allowed me easy access to all the LNB's.
Many C/ku band lnb's have 1.0 switches built into them, I believe that there are more 1.0 switches out there then there are 1.1's.
correct Scott
But to have the unit be "neutered" when switching to motorized is crazy to say the least. At least allow Diseqc 1.0 or 22k switching to be used with motorized.
But to have the unit be "neutered" when switching to motorized is crazy to say the least. At least allow Diseqc 1.0 or 22k switching to be used with motorized.
Jeff, more people need the Diseqc 1.0 switching , than need the Diseqc 1.1 switching, but both work together . A number of people have more than 10 lnbf's in their systems and need the flexibility of the Diesqc 1.0/1.1 switches working in tandem. If the Manhattan is to be taken seriously, it needs all the switch and motor options of it's competitors . You already support Diseqc 1.0 in the receiver, just haven't made it available in the motor menu . Basically, every satellite needs the ability to be individually defined as to motor settings, Diseqc settings, 22khz settings , so that our multi-dish FTA nuts can get them all.
You already support Diseqc 1.0 in the receiver, just haven't made it available in the motor menu . Basically, every satellite needs the ability to be individually defined as to motor settings, Diseqc settings, 22khz settings , so that our multi-dish FTA nuts can get them all.
Last edited:
The settings are there............. How about trying that again.....Flip through those options and then tell if the receiver "don't have" them............. The receiver was set to motor, then ant setup, then motor settings.... In there you will find the diseqc 1.0 and 1.1 settings.... What is so hard about that????? Maybe someone here can eliminate my confusion......
Attachments
Looks fine, but it's not what I see on MY screen, when I go to those menues. When we get the latest, we might be quite happy ..
Looks fine, but it's not what I see on MY screen, when I go to those menues. When we get the latest, we might be quite happy ..
Everyone here should know that those of us that are testing do have upgraded firmware. We have mentioned that for weeks. Jeff explained to everyone at the top of this page about securing the firmware. If I were everyone here waiting for an update, I would be very happy that they are getting things done to be out in a single release. Not string the fixes along for a year like other manufacturers have done in the past. But of course that is just my little ole opinion...... Have a great day!
Jeff's most recent post indicated that Diseqc 1.0 "was being looked at" . It seems that Jeff doesn't know what's in the software, so maybe his posts only confuse the issue. You're being a little too defensive about this receiver. I have two of them, and neither offers the options you show in your post. That's what I'm saying, and what Iceberg is saying. We want this receiver to get worked out right, but we don't have stock in the company. I accept that you have software that I don't , but you can only expect ME to comment on software that is running on my machine.
Iceberg has the same firmware I have........ So........ The post he made confused me. I get defensive of anyone when people complain about something that there should be no complaint about! I see so many posts that... "This receiver x is junk because I don't have a lock on such and such TP!"......... Or complaints like ... "Receiver Z has a crappy blindscan because it don't find these certian channels!" In the first case I gave, I have checked out the issue as soon as I see it and see no problem......... Then I cross reference it with a couple different receivers..... Same results.... hmmmm. Then with issue number 2 that I gave an example of, people seem to think that if the receiver don't work like a card that has a complete program on a computer to scan with, (Crazyscan) that the receiver is no good when compared to a couple other receivers the receiver works fine! All I ask is that people compare apples to apples. One can't do that when they 1 don't have the same firmware, and 2 don't look far enough to see if the problem lys with there setup, or 3. try to compare performance with something like a commercial receiver that was built for a certian job and has the price to go with it. That is why I get defensive. I will be that way with ANY RECEIVER that comes out.
That's just the way I feel about the hobby. Have a great day!
NOTE: I should add here to save the confusion....... If this receiver don't pan out after the fixes are implemented, then I will say so. If any new receiver don't pan out after fixes then I will say so. I'm waiting for the satav that everyone was talking about. I will take the exact same stand on that too!
That's just the way I feel about the hobby. Have a great day!
NOTE: I should add here to save the confusion....... If this receiver don't pan out after the fixes are implemented, then I will say so. If any new receiver don't pan out after fixes then I will say so. I'm waiting for the satav that everyone was talking about. I will take the exact same stand on that too!
Last edited:
