Advice re. FBC/Unicable

Mr_D · 14-03-2017 3:08pm #1

Hi there,

I have a set up with a single dish (80cm) pointing to 19.2E with 2 LNBs (pointing to 19.2E and 28.2E). As one of the LNBs recently failed, I plan to take this opportunity to move to Unicable / FBC and upgrade the STB to a vu+ Solo4k.

If anyone has successfully made the move to to Unicable / FBC I would greatly appreciate some advice.

The gear I intend to get is the vu+ Solo4k and (x2) Inverto IDLU-32UL40-UNBOO-OPP LNBs. The first question is re. connectivity. It seems I have two options:

1. get down one cable from each LNB and connect it to each fixed FBC tuner. This should give me 4 (I think) virtual tuners for 19.2E and 4 for 28.2E. Apparently each virtual tuner has access to any transponder with a Unicable LNB,

2. follow Inverto's recommendation for a 2 satellite set up: “SDU with two satellite dishes, each mounted with a Unicable II LNB. The outputs of the LNBs are connected to a single output combiner and one cable enters into the house. Inside the house, the cable drop is split with unicable splitters to connect up to 32 tuners…” I think the parts are Inverto Unicable II 2-way combiner (IDLU-UCM1O1-OOO2O-OPP), Unicable II 2-way splitter (IDLU-USP1O4-OUO2O-OOB) and optionally the Unicable II Power Inserter (IDLU-PINS02-OOOOO-OPP).

Problem with (1) is wasting some virtual tuners to 19.2E (which I only access occasionally). Problem with (2) is the impact of signal loss on image quality and also potentially cost if I need to re-program the LNBs with the Unicable II programmer (not a problem if I could borrow/rent one for a few hours).

Final question is re. cabling. My current set up uses “shotgun” cable (approx. c. 15m length). Is the existing cabling appropriate or will unicable/FBC require higher quality, single core, cabling?

Thanks in advance,
Mr_D

Johnboy1951 · 08-04-2017 11:28am

I am interested in reading details about such a set up also.
I would have a preference for a self built backend server running tvheadend rather than commercially available STBs.
Maybe someone has done this already also and could post about it.

Apogee · 08-04-2017 5:16pm

If you have shotgun cable already running, it probably makes sense to use that. One cable to 19E and the other to 28E.

You could potentially use a Diseqc switch with port 1 to 19E. Split the output from 28E, with one output going directly to receiver, and the second going to port 2 of the Diseqc switch. That gives you the option of 4x tuners on 19E and 28E, or 8x tuners on 28E.

Mr_D wrote: »

Problem with (2) is the impact of signal loss on image quality

There will be no loss on "image quality". The image will either be on or off. A higher quality signal does not result in a higher quality image.

Mr_D · 11-04-2017 2:18pm

Thanks for your advice Apogee.

Apogee wrote: »

If you have shotgun cable already running, it probably makes sense to use that. One cable to 19E and the other to 28E.

You could potentially use a Diseqc switch with port 1 to 19E. Split the output from 28E, with one output going directly to receiver, and the second going to port 2 of the Diseqc switch. That gives you the option of 4x tuners on 19E and 28E, or 8x tuners on 28E.

There will be no loss on "image quality". The image will either be on or off. A higher quality signal does not result in a higher quality image.

Yes, I had a similar idea as you initially, but someone told me that it would not work as DISEqC cannot be used with Unicable (not sure why). Do you know if anyone has found a workaround and managed a similar config as you have described? It seems the only way is following Inverto's guide (using splitter/combiner/programmer - see original post for details). I could not find any installer with the programmer though.

So running one cable to 19E and the other to 28E is the easiest option. Only problem with re-using the existing shotgun cable is that it is (probably) too short as it currently runs from the DISEqC to the STB. Some people advised me to run a new set of cables, while others argued that signal strength was sufficient to take the hit and just connect a new length of cables with a threaded F barrel coupler.

Re. correlation between signal quality and image quality, my experience is different, particularly in wet and/or windy conditions. As the signal quality drops, picture degradation becomes noticeable (the usual blocks appear). So ensuring maximum signal strength and quality (e.g., by utilising better cabling and avoiding unnecessary connections) gives a bit more resilience for bad weather - at least I think this is the case. I saw this when the last installer decided to replace a faulty LNB with a Sky LNB - no difference in good weather, frequent image corruption in harsh weather.

Apogee · 11-04-2017 5:16pm

Mr_D wrote: »

Thanks for your advice Apogee.

Yes, I had a similar idea as you initially, but someone told me that it would not work as DISEqC cannot be used with Unicable (not sure why).

This post suggests you can run Unicable and Diseqc switch together:
https://www.satellites.co.uk/forums/threads/unicable-diseqc-switching.160784/

Mr_D wrote: »

So running one cable to 19E and the other to 28E is the easiest option. Only problem with re-using the existing shotgun cable is that it is (probably) too short as it currently runs from the DISEqC to the STB. Some people advised me to run a new set of cables, while others argued that signal strength was sufficient to take the hit and just connect a new length of cables with a threaded F barrel coupler.

The shotgun cable is probably lower grade aluminium foil based, so replacing it with copper braid CT100 type cable would be better. But that depends on what is involved in re-running the new cable. Easier to test the existing cable first and see if it's sufficent.

Mr_D wrote: »

Re. correlation between signal quality and image quality, my experience is different, particularly in wet and/or windy conditions. As the signal quality drops, picture degradation becomes noticeable (the usual blocks appear). So ensuring maximum signal strength and quality (e.g., by utilising better cabling and avoiding unnecessary connections) gives a bit more resilience for bad weather - at least I think this is the case. I saw this when the last installer decided to replace a faulty LNB with a Sky LNB - no difference in good weather, frequent image corruption in harsh weather.

That's more signal quality rather than image quality. Once the signal reaches a certain threshold, further improvements in signal quality will not improve the actual image quality, which is a common misconception.

If the dish is of decent quality/size and properly aligned, you should not be experiencing dropouts, even with lower quality cable. The biggest gain in signal quality is down to the dish and alignment, rather than the LNB or cable.

Mr_D · 27-04-2017 5:52pm

Quick update... there is no need for a DISEqC or for a combiner.

While the Solo4k has 2 inputs and 2 FBC tuners, it only ties the two "real" tuners to these inputs. But the remaining 6 virtual tuners can be re-assigned to any input, and are not tied to specific input. Apparently this is a common mistake. So instead of having (1 real + 3 virtual) tuners for input A and (1 real + 3 virtual) tuners for input B, you can have, e.g., 1r + 1v for input A and 1r + 5v tuners for input B. In my case input A will have the feed for 19e and B for 28e.

The combiner is only needed in situation where only 1 cable can be used - typically if using a pre-existing installation you do not wish to upgrade, or if your STB only has one FBC tuner.

The final piece of useful info I came across is to be careful not to install the older Unicable (1) LNBs as they only support 4 SCRs, whereas the newer Unicable 2 support up to 32. Si in my case getting the older Unicable LNB would have got me stuck with 4+4 instead of any other combination.

For those who are curious, installation will take place next Thursday - the plan is to pull a new length of cables from the LNBs to the attic, and make the connection to the existing cabling in the attic.

Mr_D · 27-04-2017 5:58pm

I forgot to mention... if you decide to use a combiner to get both satellite signals on a single cables, you will need to get the LNBs programmed. Apparently this is very easy to do but it will either require you to buy the programmer unit (which cost c. 120 Euro); get an installer who has one of those (couldn't find any); or get the shop selling you the LNB to do the programming for you.

Unicable II LNBs do not need to be programmed if used without a combiner/switch. So not a problem for the installation I described earlier.

Johnboy1951 · 27-04-2017 5:58pm

When up and running maybe you will be able to do a recap on the connections for the system and any further tips you think might be useful, thanks.

Mr_D · 27-04-2017 6:02pm

Hi Johnboy1951,

No problem. The connectivity is trivial, the tricky bit will be the tuner configuration. I'll post my settings once everything is up and running.

Johnboy1951 · 15-07-2017 1:55pm

Mr_D, how well has your system worked out for you?

Are there things you came across that you did not expect?

Would you do anything different if you were to start all over again?

I look forward to reading how you got on, thanks.

Mr_D · 17-07-2017 6:58am

Hi Johnboy1951,

Sorry, forgot to reply... the short answer is: yes, I am delighted with it.

It turned out the hardware upgrade was a lot simpler than expected - as the installer had left spare cabling in the attic, it was a simple matter of swapping the LNBs, removing the DISEqC (no longer needed) and connecting directly to the new LNBs. One slight problem is that the profile of the LNB is the opposite of what we expected (larger rather than taller), so having those pointing on 19e and 28e on an 80cm dish was a bit of a squeeze (see LNB refs earlier in the thread).

Dish alignment was easy using signal finder on the old Solo2 (FBC/Unicable signal also "works" with traditional STB). The installer spent some time fiddling around rotating the LNBs to get the best compromise between 19e and 28e. I'll post the actual signal strength and quality this evening. Bottom line though, the image is perfect, even in stormy weather.

So to recap: two cables going down, direct from each LNB to each STB input. Next step is the tuner config, and this is where the Solo4k excels. Though you have two hardware tuners (A and

connected to each STB input (so A was on 28e and B on 19e), you have an additional "6 logical" tuners that can be linked to either of the hardware tuners. So I decided to assign 5 of these to 28e and 1 to 19e. They need to be configured in a daisy chain arrangement, i.e.:

So for 28e: Tuners A <- C <- D <- E <- F <- G
for 19.2: Tuners B <- H

As I also got got the dual T/T2/C module, I also have 2 additional tuners (I/J) for Soarsat and the NI Freeview.

Works perfectly, yesterday I had four programmes recording while watching a fifth one.

Another bonus with the Solo4k is the additional power of the ARM CPU and extra RAM. This allow you to run KODI (17.3) in very good conditions.

Hope this will help for now, I will post further info when I get home.
Mr_D

Mr_D · 17-07-2017 9:12pm

Hello,

I tried including photos of the installation but could not get those to appear in the post. The point was... the installer had difficulties squeezing the 2 LNBs. The overlap (between the LNBs) means that the installer had to make a compromise between 19e and 28e. So signal strength and quality would be higher with a single LNB. This being said... image is perfect even in stormy conditions. Current reading:

19e (here CNN)
Signal strength: 89%
Image quality: 82%

28e (here BBC1)
Signal strength: 98%
Image quality: 82%

Perfect image even when multiple tuners are in use. Just two small problems I am yet to sort out:

1/ Lack of sound for audio files in KODI (but I just found out how to fix this - need to change player for filetype in KODI config file)

2/ For some reason the Transponder with the Horror Channel and various CBS channel returns no channel (11344V on Astra 2F). Very odd. All others are okay.

Hope this helps

Johnboy1951 · 17-07-2017 11:36pm

Hopefully I have understood correctly ....

the only real problem you had (or the installer had) was the physical size of the two LNBs making it difficult to position them for best results.
I must say you seem to have good signal quality in any case.

In the OP you mentioned using one cable with combiner at dish and splitter at STB.
That would have meant reprogramming one of the LNBs so they did not interfere with each other. I *think* that is what would have been required.

The versatility of the virtual tuners in the STB seems to be good, so you are not committed to four tuners per input.

It seems then that the STB is powering both LNBs directly?

Now as I understand it, if you ever have need in the future for another bunch of tuners, all you will need is to split a cable and pass it to another STB.
In that case how would the LNB be powered? By a PSU inserted between the splitter and the LNB?

You have 32 tuners available from the LNB - it would be a pity to waste them

Nice set up.
Congrats!

Mr_D · 18-07-2017 6:11am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Hopefully I have understood correctly ....

the only real problem you had (or the installer had) was the physical size of the two LNBs making it difficult to position them for best results.
I must say you seem to have good signal quality in any case.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. The way to picture it is that the LNBs are wider rather than taller. But the installer managed to find a position for the pair that gave perfectly acceptable results. But watch out if you want to get satellite closer than 9 degree.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

In the OP you mentioned using one cable with combiner at dish and splitter at STB.
That would have meant reprogramming one of the LNBs so they did not interfere with each other. I *think* that is what would have been required.

The versatility of the virtual tuners in the STB seems to be good, so you are not committed to four tuners per input.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. When I started the thread I had expected to be stuck with 4 tuners for each input. As I wanted more for 28e than 19e (say, 6/2 or 7/3) the only way would have been to use a splitter/combiner (in lieu of the DISEqC). But then I found out that this would require "programming" the LNB so gave up (cost of programmer is over 100 Euro; no option to rent it in the Republic; shop selling the LNBs in Finland could have done it but they tried to sell me the Unicable 2 programmer instead...)

In any case... not needed. The flexibility of the logical tuners means that you are only restricted to one physical tuner per input, but the remaining 6 logical tuners can be assigned to either input.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It seems then that the STB is powering both LNBs directly?

Yes, I think so. Now that you mention it, I remember having some difficulties with the original tuning. But setting both "Force LNB Power" and "Force Toneburst" to yes fixed all problems.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Now as I understand it, if you ever have need in the future for another bunch of tuners, all you will need is to split a cable and pass it to another STB.
In that case how would the LNB be powered? By a PSU inserted between the splitter and the LNB?

I think you are correct again. But you may require a power inserter to boost the signal depending on cable length, initial signal strength etc. Inverto has some interesting guides on Unicable installation (just Google Inverto Unicabler, power inserter). You could also use one of the spare tuners to stream from the box if it's just for one device.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You have 32 tuners available from the LNB - it would be a pity to waste them

Nice set up.
Congrats!

Thanks!

cormacl · 20-08-2017 11:26pm

Folks,
I've been researching this new tech to better understand the options available going forward.
This thread did a great job explaining the unicable setup at play. For instance if the setup was only concentrating on just a 28.2 feed, a single cable could be used and I think all the tuners setup as SCRs from that one tuner input. The 32 SCR limit would be well future proofed for a much larger set of virtual tuners or daisy chain of multiple receivers off the same single cable. Even if freeing up a cable from an existing twin cable setup, that spare cable could be dedicated to an aerial feed.
I've looked at the new Sky Q LNBs and the way they split horizontal and vertical tuners between a cable pair so that the full band is delivered to the receiver. In theory the receiver could then have any number of tuners installed on it.
So what is sky then doing using two cables at all? It seems to me they didn't need to go this route unless they felt the 32 SCR limit was crippling them. Is that a correct understanding?
Another related aspect to this.. does the Vu+ or other non-Sky receivers with FBC include an option for the same kind of LNB being used by Sky. The FBC term may be what confuses this a little but "full band capture" and what seems to be generic receivers fitted with 2 inputs was making me think this two-cable approach was also being incorporated on non-Sky receivers. Other threads on boards have referred to the Sky Q LNB as a "FBC" LNB.
I'm thinking here if someone wanted to do a FBC setup using a Sky dish, they'd need to use the Sky LNB rather than trying to hack a generic Unicable LNB onto the dish or worse having to switch out the dish for a generic dish in order to accommodate a non-Sky Unicable LNB.
Hopefully you can clarify this for me.

Johnboy1951 · 21-08-2017 12:01am

So what is sky then doing using two cables at all?

I do not know ... but did suspect that when Sky were developing their Q system the two cable approach was the best option available to them at the time considering their customer profile.

I might be very wide of the mark of course

Thurston? · 21-08-2017 8:51am

Yeah, if a load of potential Q customers already have multiple cables in place, there's hardly much point having an extra tuning stage in the LNB.

Johnboy1951 · 21-08-2017 10:43am

cormacl wrote:

I've looked at the new Sky Q LNBs and the way they split horizontal and vertical tuners between a cable pair so that the full band is delivered to the receiver. In theory the receiver could then have any number of tuners installed on it.
So what is sky then doing using two cables at all? It seems to me they didn't need to go this route unless they felt the 32 SCR limit was crippling them. Is that a correct understanding?

Have you used a Sky Q LNB?
What about a 'Hybrid' type?

I have not seen a full explanation of the capabilities of the LNB. I have read some results of tests done in user set ups only.

Are there two FBC outputs from the LNB or are the two outputs confined to vertical and horizontal?

Is it possible the LNB has FBC outputs and the receiver is the limiting factor (one horizontal and one vertical)?

What about the 'Hybrid'? What are the capabilities of its four outputs?

A technical spec would be useful ..... I haven't seen one ....

Thurston? · 21-08-2017 8:19pm

cormacl wrote: »

I've looked at the new Sky Q LNBs and the way they split horizontal and vertical tuners between a cable pair so that the full band is delivered to the receiver. In theory the receiver could then have any number of tuners installed on it.
So what is sky then doing using two cables at all? It seems to me they didn't need to go this route unless they felt the 32 SCR limit was crippling them. Is that a correct understanding?

'Full band' just refers to the frequencies involved, nothing to do with horizontal or vertical. The tuners don't know or care which LNB aerial probe is feeding them.

I would think Sky know they can run a twin cable as easily as a single, & a lot of cables will be in place already, so no need to make things more complicated than they need to be.

cormacl · 21-08-2017 8:49pm

I haven't used anything yet. Just reading up on it.

But I do believe the fbc or wideband lnbs with two outs are output restricted to horizontal and vertical like a quatro and I'm suspecting the receivers will mostly have two tuner inputs to accommodate this. One assumes the tuners are setup in that mode with each assigned to the horizontal or vertical mode.

This video at the 2:10 mark shows a setup using wideband lnbs with 13/19 and a diseqc multiswitch setup.. Its in German but the presenter seems to say that the outputs are fixed at the lnb.

https://youtu.be/sTdDpMlqvUs

As for hybrid, the only unicable hybrids I've seen and held in my hand had four outputs, one unicable and three legacy.

This will no doubt clear up as time passes. For the moment, anyone wanting to setup generic kit with fbc tuners, can do so with a single unicable feed per lnb and use legacy variants if they need to share this lnb with older receivers.

Thurston? · 21-08-2017 10:20pm

cormacl wrote: »

... One assumes the tuners are setup in that mode with each assigned to the horizontal or vertical mode.

There is no horizontal or vertical 'mode' as far as the tuners are concerned. It's the polarisation of the radio signal, & the only thing at the receiving end concerned with it are the aerial probes in the LNB feed.

If you want to carry both H & V transponders that overlap in frequency on the same cable, you need further frequency shifting, such as the SCR channels or a stacker/destacker.

cormacl · 22-08-2017 3:01pm

Thurston? wrote: »

There is no horizontal or vertical 'mode' as far as the tuners are concerned. It's the polarisation of the radio signal, & the only thing at the receiving end concerned with it are the aerial probes in the LNB feed.

Understood on the tuners. But I was asking if feeding the two wideband LNB outputs direct into the two receiver sat inputs would require some configuration on the receiver to say which is which. And at this stage I think the answer to that is no.. you cannot connect wideband LNBs to generic receivers. Sky seems to be the only vendor actually connecting the wideband pair direct to their Sky-Q receivers. Maybe that will change with other receivers in time if there is a valid reason/advantage.

Thurston? · 22-08-2017 11:18pm

cormacl wrote: »

... you cannot connect wideband LNBs to generic receivers. Sky seems to be the only vendor actually connecting the wideband pair direct to their Sky-Q receivers. Maybe that will change with other receivers in time if there is a valid reason/advantage.

The valid reason is that at any given time, everything being picked up by the LNB is available at the receiver, unlike those others that still have to switch the LNB.

cormacl · 22-08-2017 11:25pm

But that would then still fly with average sat customers in Europe where most countries have their sat services on the one position. To have it as a config option may still be a possibility then.

Thurston? · 22-08-2017 11:40pm

Not sure if you misunderstood but, by 'switch the LNB', I meant switch between low & high band, which it seems the FBC tuners fitted to Vu+ receivers do anyway, with IF range 950-2150 MHz. (And they also switch H & V pol.)

cormacl · 22-08-2017 11:52pm

Ah OK. I did indeed misunderstand what you meant.

But if the LNB is Unicable which is what we need to do to properly use the FBC tuners, then surely none of that matters as we've got the ability to serve up to 32 transponders simultaneously with the LNB doing the hard work.
That would surely serve the needs of fast channel change and IP box client demands on streaming etc unless the reaction time of the Unicable LNB is slower than what Sky get by having the full band delivered right to the receiver.

Mr_D · 20-11-2017 8:45pm

Re. SkyQ and Unicable, part of the answer may be on Wikipedia:

"Global Invacom developed the SatCR Adaptor in conjunction with BSkyB to enable flats and homes with single-feed distribution systems to fit Sky+ and Sky+ HD dual-tuner DVR receivers.[8] While BSkyB SCR is slightly different to the CENELEC EN50494 standard most European SCR compatible multiswitches support both standard and BSkyB modes. Most Sky branded receivers including the Sky Q model can be used on SCR systems by enabling a hidden option. [9] Sky Italia receivers comply with the unicable standard."

See Wikipedia page "Single cable distribution"

Advice re. FBC/Unicable

Comments