Internal switches for x2x type receivers?

[SimpleSimon]

This question came to me in a PM, and I thought it was worth starting a thread. The requester can take credit for it if he likes. He was afraid it was a stupid question, but it's NOT at all.

...since the technology Of DishNetwork has upgraded/updated and is now referred to as DishPro... Why are there 2 inputs on the dual tuner IRD's such as the DISH 921 and 721 receivers?

Why ask? well, why could there not be ONE input and place any switching, demultiplexing or whatever one wants to call it, WithIN the receiver itself? Or is there another use for doing it THAT way? ( like why not an internal DP-21 switch?) I suppose it would not be backward compatible the other way, but hey, if the company has Finally designed a new fleet of receivers, why not take it to whatever the hell I am talking about?

You answered your own question in a way by talking about backward compatibility and internal switches.

However, the concept is A+ valid. Of course the DPP44 and it's separator are a step down that road, but are still external parts. At the very least, the separator could be built into the x2x box, and switched in/out of use at setup time. Maybe we're just in a transitionary phase right now, and they'll end up doing this on a wider scale.

Comments from the peanut gallery?

 

[Wayd Wolf]

Because whether you use 950-1450MHz or 950-2050Mhz, only ONE band can be transmitted on the coax at once. DP is stacked with both polarizations on the same line one band over the other, but a whole other bird worth of transmissions needs a whole other line unless you want to stack those onto somewhere above 2Ghz?

Anyone for installing microwave waveguides around their home instead of coax?

The only way of fitting multiple birds worth of programming would be to transform QPSK from the dish to 256QAM on a private internal cable system where you'd have enough bandwidth to then put several birds worth of transmissions on each coax line.

Until then, we're faced with having a switched topology system.

BTW, technology as stated above does exist and can be gotten if you have the money.

 

[RBBrittain]

Because whether you use 950-1450MHz or 950-2050Mhz, only ONE band can be transmitted on the coax at once. DP is stacked with both polarizations on the same line one band over the other, but a whole other bird worth of transmissions needs a whole other line unless you want to stack those onto somewhere above 2Ghz?

Actually, DishPro Plus uses the same range (950-2150 MHz) as ordinary DishPro; instead of stacking both polarities of one bird on one cable, it stacks one polarity each from two different birds. You still have switched topology, but the DPP44 can switch two birds onto one cable.

 

[Wayd Wolf]

Actually, DishPro Plus uses the same range (950-2150 MHz) as ordinary DishPro; instead of stacking both polarities of one bird on one cable, it stacks one polarity each from two different birds. You still have switched topology, but the DPP44 can switch two birds onto one cable.

True, but there's still got to be a switch past that point elsewhere to be told which of the polarizations to put on which band. While you can only look at one transponder at a time per tuner so DP Plus could work on one line, it's basically going backwards.

IOW, each tuner gets right now both polarizations of a single bird on one line and it is as simple as tuning to that frequency unless you send signal to switch to another bird. DP Plus for two tuners on one line would essentially return them to having to switch between polarities on the same bird and not just between whole birds.

So while you can do it, you're reintroducing switching between polarities. Getting away from unnecessary switching is what we should be doing. We don't need to increase points of failure by reintroducing actives we've gotten rid of and possibly increase latency.

Or we could introduce two dozen birds and put a different bird's transponder in each slot and tell the remote switch which one to put in and have several tuners fed on one line. We could even split it down further to more complexity...

Not that this needs to be made more complex rather then less.

DP Plus is really not putting all availibility on one line. It's just dicing up the scheme more, not less.

 

[SimpleSimon]

Wayd Wolf I don't think you understand why they do these things in this way. It's mostly economics, and unbelievably, they've made some decent decisions here.

ALL DishPro devices except for a Single/Dual LNBF have some type of switching built into them. The DishProPlus equipment such as the DPP44, and the new LNBF with a 3rd satellite input (I forget it's name) are rather smart. They are capable of putting ANY of their transponder sets on EITHER the low (950-1450) or high (1650-2150 I think) band of the output cable.

They use these sets of transponders instead of singles in order to keep the outboard equipment as simple as possible. The tuners inside the receivers grab the specific transponder desired.

Maybe someday it will be smarter (cheaper and more reliable) to move that part of the tuner into the LNBF and have it send only the specific transponder(s) needed down the wire, but that day isn't here yet.

What this thread is looking at is yet another enhancement level of the current technology. We're gonna chew on it a bit, and who knows, maybe some good ideas will appear that E* will be able to use.

Your idea of putting specifically requested transponders onto a specific feed slot is interesting. It could feed around 30 tuners. It sounds similar to some of technology used for telephone trunking or maybe even cable VOD (which I know nothing about).

 

[bcshields]

I think the whole reason they are doing it is for bakwards compatability. We're still servicing 1000 model legacy recievers which really need to go, now that Dishpro has been out for a few years.

I've been complaining about legacy stuff for over a year now, suggesting a 301 upgrade with anything lower than a 4000.. just to get them to the second tier of technology.

The X2X rcvrs need two inputs to be compatable with the DPTwin, Legacy Twin. Why they didn't make one port able to accept a DPPTwin, with the 'seperator' inside, with a simple switch test to determine DPP or otherwise to turn the seperator access on or off... is beyond me.

Also, why a wireless phone adapter isn't built in either is beyond me.

Probably economics.. and engineers with a bad rep for completing 70% of features.

Besides, if the seperator goes bad, it costs under 10 bucks instead of 200 for the rcvr.

But then again, the recievers should be one big computer with removable parts anyway, imho.

 

[RBBrittain]

...the new LNBF with a 3rd satellite input (I forget it's name)...

They call it the DishPro Plus Twin LNBF; of course, it has switching built into it too. But then, it doesn't look like I'll get any of that; looks like my 522 is coming this next week, more than likely done the old-fashioned way--with two separate cables. (My landlord has already signed the letter specifically permitting two wires.)