Diseqc or multiswitch for fringe reception?

[satkingno]

Hi!

I have searched the boards, but there does not seem to be a definitive answer for this.

What is best for fringe reception, a regular quad/diseqc setup, or quattro/multiswitch? I have heard that you are supposed to increase the dish size a little when using mulitswitches, but is there really any truth to this?

The diseqc switches I currently use has an insertion loss of typically 5db:
http://www.emp-centauri.cz/index.php?lang=en&page=prodview&id_kateg=1&id_pkateg=21&id=82

The Multiswitch I am looking at has a loss of 3 db:
http://www.emp-centauri.cz/index.php?lang=en&page=prodview&id_kateg=1&id_pkateg=15&id=75

In addition to this, the internal switch in the quad LNB is removed, so shouldn't it be even more loss reduction? Does anyone have experience with changing over from a "normal" setup to a multiswitch setup?

Regards

Tommy

 

[satelliteman]

Difficult to say for fringe reception but a Quattro, multi switch arrangement may inherit more noise on the system over a quad and DiSEqC.

 

[PaulR]

Gut feeling says that quad and (good) DiSeqc will be better probably because of the wider choice of LNB giving a better quality launch signal into the Diseqc switch.

It should be the other way round because, as you say, there is less circuitry but I suspect that the multiswitch and quattro are optimised for strong signal areas.

 

[Clown man]

That "EMP Centauri multiswitch" ....works fine with Quad or Quattro LNB's...so LNB choice is not a Problem.......

Personally don't have much Thu loss ( if any)... using my Opticum Multiswitch/Invacom Quattro c120 .. compared to a direct Quad LNB..

....The EMP is a very good Multiswitch with built in signal attenuators...something that my Opticum multiswitch sadly lacks...

 

[4wd]

off topic att. satkingno, how's 28.2 at your location, post a report in Sky & Freesat fringe reception ?

 

[satkingno]

I am currently at work offshore 4wd, but will post some figures after I get home over the weekend.

 

[Huevos]

The diseqc switches I currently use has an insertion loss of typically 5db

That is insertion loss so is not relevant to this discussion. Important thing is SNR, and I've never seen a DiSEqC switch, even a cheap one, that lowers SNR by more than 0.1dB, unless it is broken.

 

[satkingno]

Okay, I see...so the bottom line is that there's so little, if any, to gain on a multiswitch vs diseqc setup, that it's simply not worth it?

 

[Huevos]

Okay, I see...so the bottom line is that there's so little, if any, to gain on a multiswitch vs diseqc setup, that it's simply not worth it?

Not really, but their purpose is different. A multiswitch is to raise the number of feeds above four. A DiSEqC switch is so a single feed can access more than one LNB.

 

[satkingno]

Yes, don't really need more than eight feeds, so switching to octo LNB's would suffice then. Just thought there was something to gain on the signal maybe. Well, this has been very helpful, thanks a lot to all who replied!

 

[Huevos]

Most octos are ****

 

[satkingno]

Oh really? So if there is a need for more than 4 feeds, you would recommend quattro/multiswitch?

 

[Huevos]

Oh really? So if there is a need for more than 4 feeds, you would recommend quattro/multiswitch?

Just get what is within your budget. If you can receive the channels you want to watch for most people that is good enough. And with digital even if the LNB is crap and noisy, as long as error correction can sort it out the picture will be perfect.

 

[satkingno]

Ok, thanks Huevos!

 

[Terryl]

Anything inserted inline will attenuate the overall signal, so if you want the maximum signal for looking for those hard to get DX signals then a direct connection from the LNB to the receiver is the best setup.

.6 dB or 3 dB insertion loss it's still that much closer to the over all noise floor.