Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: DiSEqC 1.2 8x1 issues with older Boxes

  1. #1
    Member Optima Collins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    68
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 146 Times in 100 Posts
    Rep Power
    211
    Reputation
    735

    Default DiSEqC 1.2 8x1 issues with older Boxes

    I was just wondering if anyone can give me some insight into an issue I'm having with an 8X1 DiSEqC 1.2 compatible switch and 2 older Set top boxes, one a Phoenix 2800 and the other a Kaon KSF 200 (both DiSEqC 1 only). While both work very well with my 1.2 - 4 x 1 switches, neither works with the 1.2 - 8X1. I was under the impression that newer configurations were backward compatible, but I have found that only port A works on the older boxes, all others being ignored, when using the 8x1 switch. In other words, I lose 3 of the 4 sats I have hooked up.

    All of my DiSEqCs work properly with the Strong box.

    Is this a common issue with older STB's?

    Cheers
    OC



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Member Optima Collins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    68
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 146 Times in 100 Posts
    Rep Power
    211
    Reputation
    735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Optima Collins View Post
    I was just wondering if anyone can give me some insight into an issue I'm having with an 8X1 DiSEqC 1.2 compatible switch and 2 older Set top boxes, one a Phoenix 2800 and the other a Kaon KSF 200 (both DiSEqC 1 only). While both work very well with my 1.2 - 4 x 1 switches, neither works with the 1.2 - 8X1. I was under the impression that newer configurations were backward compatible, but I have found that only port A works on the older boxes, all others being ignored, when using the 8x1 switch. In other words, I lose 3 of the 4 sats I have hooked up.

    All of my DiSEqCs work properly with the Strong box.

    Is this a common issue with older STB's?

    Cheers
    OC
    Come on guys. Surely someone has an explanation...

  • #3
    Senior Member
    beer4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Nether World.
    Age
    90
    Posts
    6,375
    Thanks
    1,351
    Thanked 1,452 Times in 1,066 Posts
    Rep Power
    559
    Reputation
    7552

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by Optima Collins View Post
    Come on guys. Surely someone has an explanation...
    G'Day Cobber,
    If you carefully read the DiSEqC specifications, you will find that STBs, or better stated, their firmware is backward compatible, but not forward.
    Simply put, the older firmware does not support the later switches.
    Ipso facto, you could possibly find a later firmware for those STBs that would do the Job.
    Unfortunately not too many manufacturers support this as it would require them to update their licence fee to (their name escapes me at the moment.)

    Kindest Regards, " The Druid ".


    PS:-

    DiSEqC was developed by European satellite provider , which now acts as the standards agency for the protocol


    Last edited by beer4life; 11-03-11 at 09:53 PM.

  • #4
    Member Optima Collins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    68
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 146 Times in 100 Posts
    Rep Power
    211
    Reputation
    735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beer4life View Post
    G'Day Cobber,
    If you carefully read the DiSEqC specifications, you will find that STBs, or better stated, their firmware is backward compatible, but not forward.
    Simply put, the older firmware does not support the later switches.
    Ipso facto, you could possibly find a later firmware for those STBs that would do the Job.
    Unfortunately not too many manufacturers support this as it would require them to update their licence fee to (their name escapes me at the moment.)

    Kindest Regards, " The Druid ".


    PS:-




    Thanks Beer.
    I agree whole heartedly with you regarding the firmware upgrade. My issue however is that I lose sats when I replace a 4X1 switch with an 8X1. Both are 1.2 compatible, however, only position one (port A) is recognised on the older boxes. That would imply that the 8x1 DiSEqC is wire differently to the 4x1, otherwise the older box should ignore anything beyond the 4 ports it normally sees. They don't. They ignore every port beyond the first.

    My question asked whether that was common or could it be an isolated issue with the brand of switch I have?

    OC
    Last edited by Optima Collins; 12-03-11 at 02:27 PM.

  • #5
    Administrator
    mtv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    19,893
    Thanks
    7,508
    Thanked 15,066 Times in 6,761 Posts
    Rep Power
    5647
    Reputation
    239305

    Default

    Perhaps it's more a case of luck that the DiSEqC 1.2 4X1 switches work with your DiSEqC 1 boxes, rather than a radical difference between the 4X1 & 8X1 switches, especially when they all work correctly on DiSEqC 1.2

  • #6
    Member Optima Collins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Age
    68
    Posts
    444
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 146 Times in 100 Posts
    Rep Power
    211
    Reputation
    735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtv View Post
    Perhaps it's more a case of luck that the DiSEqC 1.2 4X1 switches work with your DiSEqC 1 boxes, rather than a radical difference between the 4X1 & 8X1 switches, especially when they all work correctly on DiSEqC 1.2
    Perhaps you're right. I discovered the problem when the kids broke the remote on the Strong and I replaced the box with the Phoenix. The T90 is hooked up via the 8X1 with only 4 LNB's active at the moment. I thought that even though the switch was 1.2, that it was backward compatible with the 1 protocol so it should be fine with the box, yet it wasn't. When I replaced it with the 1.2 4X1 it worked. Go figure!

    Anyway, it means I can't freely move the boxes around without taking this into consideration. Not a big problem, just annoying.

    Cheers
    OC

  • #7
    Senior Member
    beer4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Nether World.
    Age
    90
    Posts
    6,375
    Thanks
    1,351
    Thanked 1,452 Times in 1,066 Posts
    Rep Power
    559
    Reputation
    7552

    Cool DiSEqC Compatability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Optima Collins View Post
    Thanks Beer.
    I agree whole heartedly with you regarding the firmware upgrade. My issue however is that I lose sats when I replace a 4X1 switch with an 8X1. Both are 1.2 compatible, however, only position one (port A) is recognised on the older boxes. That would imply that the 8x1 DiSEqC is wire differently to the 4x1, otherwise the older box should ignore anything beyond the 4 ports it normally sees. They don't. They ignore every port beyond the first.

    My question asked whether that was common or could it be an isolated issue with the brand of switch I have?

    OC
    G'Day Cobber,
    Eutelsat control the protocol, not you. What you are experiencing is normal behavior. There is a vast amount of technical information on their site corroborating what I've already told you.
    Perhaps this will convince you? I previously posted on the forum.



    The Commands are different for 4 and 8 or 16 port devices.

    Kindest Regards, " The Druid ".


  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to beer4life For This Useful Post:

    mtv (12-03-11),Optima Collins (12-03-11)

  • Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •