Blind scan tests results - Octagon SF8008(E2) - SX88 (Non E2) - SX88 4K (Non E2)

[Manikm909]

thought i would post up some blind scan test results, on the basis, i currently have 3 octagon models

the scans were run on 10e:

octagon sf8008 - e2 vix image
scan time: 10 mins
126 channels found
(excludes 9e - i think)

octagon sf8008 - non e2 sx88 image
scan time: 10 mins
338 channels found.
(more channels found due to scan including 9e)

octagon sx88 (the real STB )
scan time: 5 mins
338 channels found.

octagon sx88 4k (the real STB )
scan time: 6 mins
340 channels found.

quite interesting, the real SX88 hardware is twice as quick (i guess its not being emulated)

I will follow up with some low SR TP scans at some point, when i find a reliable one.

however, from memory, when trying to scan in 45w china radio, blind scan on sf8008 E2 found them - blind scans on SX88 didnt find them but SX88 did allow manual entry of them, however, SX88 4K did not find on blind scan, or allow manual entry.

 

[MCelliotG]

Are you sure the filters were set correctly on Enigma2 SF8008?

 

[Manikm909]

Are you sure the filters were set correctly on Enigma2 SF8008?

what do you mean? sorry.

 

[MCelliotG]

The Enigma2 blindscan plugin relies heavily in using the satellites.xml database as a reference in order to filter out certain parts of the spectrum. When you do a full band blindscan on two adjacent satellites, you cannot expect the same results as a closed source blindscan, exactly because the latter has no filters to slow down the scan in order to give you a detailed report.

A direct and fair comparison would be to blindscan only the active part of the spectrum from 10E in order not to let the 9E transponders in. And that without filtering out the nearby satellites, so that the Enigma2 plugin leaves satellites.xml untouched.

 

[Manikm909]

The Enigma2 blindscan plugin relies heavily in using the satellites.xml database as a reference in order to filter out certain parts of the spectrum. When you do a full band blindscan on two adjacent satellites, you cannot expect the same results as a closed source blindscan, exactly because the latter has no filters to slow down the scan in order to give you a detailed report.

A direct and fair comparison would be to blindscan only the active part of the spectrum from 10E in order not to let the 9E transponders in. And that without filtering out the nearby satellites, so that the Enigma2 plugin leaves satellites.xml untouched.

u cant do that on SX88 non e2 (closed linux)

on the same physical box, i choose 10e , on non e2, i chose 10e.

i cant help it if non e2 is brining in 9e when e2 is not.
also the scan time is the same on the sf8008 (both emulated sx88) and in full e2 mode

 

[Channel Hopper]

So, you cannot filter out adjacent satellites on the SX88 blind scan ?

 

[MCelliotG]

u cant do that on SX88 non e2 (closed linux)

on the same physical box, i choose 10e , on non e2, i chose 10e.

i cant help it if non e2 is brining in 9e when e2 is not.
also the scan time is the same on the sf8008 (both emulated sx88) and in full e2 mode

So, since SX88 with its closed source firmware is not able to filter out, then any comparison is nonsense. That's my point. You need to understand first in what grounds you make comparisons before you go on with them. E2 will never have the same results with a closed source blindscan.

 

[AndyX]

10 E is a bit problematic for scanning comparison for the aforestated reasons, but also because there are a lot of intermittent feeds which come and go. You would have to run 2 receivers on a blind scan at exactly the same time for a comparison of the number of channels found.

 

[Manikm909]

this was more of a test of scanning duration - on the comparative models.

 

[moonbase]

If you repeat the scan test on 16E you should remove quite a bit of adjacent satellite bleed over, the nearest generally receivable Ku satellites would be 13.0E or 19.2E.
There are plenty of channels on 16.0E.

An alternative would be to give something like 33E or 36E a whirl, not so many active channels though but not much chance of adjacent satellite bleed over.