Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Further to the Diseqc switch default position

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    837
    Reputation
    32307

    Default Further to the Diseqc switch default position

    A few days back I asked the question:
    “Does a Diseqc switch have a default position”.
    In other words, if a non-diseqc STB is connected to a diseqc switch, will the diseqc switch simply curl up in a ball and refuse to talk to anybody, or does it adopt some default switch position, allowing the non-diseqc STB to pass through.
    I received a couple of answers, which basically amounted to a definitive “maybe”.
    I have just conducted a test using two different brands of 4 X 1 Diseqc switches.
    To determine if I was getting full functionality in the event of an apparent default position, I placed a 22Khz switch between the diseqc switch and two LNBs – one on C1, the other on D2.

    The STB (a Strong SRT4930) was setup as follows:

    C1
    Diseqc – Off
    22Khz – Off

    D2
    Diseqc – Off
    22Khz – On

    I then proceeded to test the system via the diseqc switch moving the output from the 22Khz switch successively through diseqc inputs LNB1, LNB2, LNB3, LNB4 on both different brands of diseqc switch.

    The results for BOTH switches were as follow:

    Position: Result:
    LNB1 Full functionality – each LNB selectable via 22Khz switch
    LNB2 Nothing
    LNB3 Nothing
    LNB4 Nothing

    So both diseqc switches, in the absence of any diseqc commands from the STB, defaulted at power-up to the LNB1 position.

    I was asked why I would want to connect a non-diseqc STB to a diseqc-controlled LNB system.
    Simple: I already have a diseqc-controlled LNB system cabled up, which includes a C1/D3 LNB – in the likely event that I want to use VAST with the same system, I was confronted with either a changeover to a dual-LNB for C1 and an extra cable from the second output, or leaving the SRT4930 switched on and tuned to C1/V and looping the IF stream to the UEC box, or finding a way through the diseqc switch for a non-diseqc STB (UEC).

    On the basis of my, admittedly limited, testing, it would seem that I can use the UEC box through the existing Diseqc system, providing the C1 LNB is connected to LNB1 on the diseqc switch. An indoor manual antenna switch would then used to switch between the Strong and the UEC boxes.

    It was suggested by one of the respondents to my original query that any default position may not be reliable, and that may well be the case.
    But I have switched the system on and off numerous times and every time both diseqc switches come on in the LNB1 default condition.

    Hopefully this information may be useful to anyone faced with a similar dilemma.



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    64
    Posts
    6,393
    Thanks
    11,000
    Thanked 5,437 Times in 2,652 Posts
    Rep Power
    2156
    Reputation
    89077

    Default

    So why did you start a new thread

    beer4life
    & tristen already answered your question as best possible.

    On the basis of my, admittedly limited, testing, it would seem that I can use the UEC box through the existing Diseqc system, providing the C1 LNB is connected to LNB1 on the diseqc switch. An indoor manual antenna switch would then used to switch between the Strong and the UEC boxes.

    It was suggested by one of the respondents to my original query that any default position may not be reliable, and that may well be the case.
    But I have switched the system on and off numerous times and every time both diseqc switches come on in the LNB1 default condition.
    On the basis of this, the info you were given in the thread was correct.
    Last edited by Tiny; 10-01-13 at 06:33 PM.
    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."

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

    beer4life (10-01-13),tristen (11-01-13)

  • #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    837
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    My most sincere apologies, Tiny.

    I had no idea that once a couple of the regulars around here had spoken, that this signalled the end of discussion and that no further opinion or information should be contemplated or forthcoming.

    In future, I shall speak only when spoken to.

  • #4
    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
    560
    Reputation
    7552

    Thumbs down Evolving DiSEqC Protocol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    My most sincere apologies, Tiny.

    I had no idea that once a couple of the regulars around here had spoken, that this signalled the end of discussion and that no further opinion or information should be contemplated or forthcoming.

    In future, I shall speak only when spoken to.
    Many thanks for your gratuitous reply.
    You were given our informed opinions, and if you choose to ignore, that is your own prerogative your Majesty.
    But please, do not obfuscate the Peasants.

    replied to a thread in



    I believe your question was adequately answered and the reasons for some apparent disparities.



    Last edited by beer4life; 10-01-13 at 11:59 PM.

  • #5
    Crazy Diamond
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Tasmania
    Age
    64
    Posts
    6,393
    Thanks
    11,000
    Thanked 5,437 Times in 2,652 Posts
    Rep Power
    2156
    Reputation
    89077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thala Dan View Post
    My most sincere apologies, Tiny.

    I had no idea that once a couple of the regulars around here had spoken, that this signalled the end of discussion and that no further opinion or information should be contemplated or forthcoming.

    In future, I shall speak only when spoken to.
    You missed the point, the same people that read your first thread will probably read this thread.
    The fact that only 2 people replied & the others didn't, is because they more than likely had nothing to add to the already informed comments.

    Scroll down on both the first thread & this thread & check on "Members who have read this thread:"

    Have a nice day.
    Cheers, Tiny
    "You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    The information is out there; you just have to let it in."

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Tiny For This Useful Post:

    beer4life (11-01-13)

  • #6
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,433
    Thanks
    934
    Thanked 1,661 Times in 724 Posts
    Rep Power
    837
    Reputation
    32307

    Default

    I beg to differ, Tiny – it is you who have missed the point.

    On Jan 6, on the previous thread I said to Tristen:

    I take on board what you have said, and appreciate it….however….curiosity being what it is, I will probably try out the UEC box on a couple of different diseqc switches…just for the hell of it
    My subsequent post, starting this thread on Jan 10, was nothing more than a follow-up to that statement – having done the limited test I figured there may be others, including the original responders, who might be interested in the results.

    In addition to the minor misdemeanor of starting a new thread, you, and Beer4life seem to construe this action as an affront to the knowledge of those who had originally responded.

    It was nothing of the sort – it was simply a follow-up with what I thought was some interesting, but not necessarily conclusive, information.

    This invoked the ridiculous response from B4L of:

    You were given our informed opinions, and if you choose to ignore, that is your own prerogative your Majesty.
    Utter rubbish – I did not choose to ignore anybodys opinion, informed or otherwise – simply put those opinions, and my own curiosity to a simple test.

    I thought this was supposed to be a technical site.
    Most technical people I know, and I know a few, are always interested in having their knowledge and opinions put to the test – it is how we learn.

    Frankly, I’m buggered if I know what all the damn fuss is about.

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

    ap5 (19-01-13),silverbak (20-03-16)

  • 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
    •