Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

> Out of curiosity, whats the ballpark average bitrate of your non-sports 1080p 
> content?

Following the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) guidelines there's no 1080p 
broadcast in Europe and will most propably not happen. The HD formats in Europe 
are 1280x720p50, 1440x1080i25 and 1920x1080i25. The majority of the european 
public service broadcasting institutions are using 720p50. The privat 
broadcasting stations are using one of the 1080i25 formats, a majority 
1920x1080i25. Bitrate on the 720p50 channels is up to 16Mbit/s but rarely below 
10Mbit/s. The range for the private 1080i25 channels is much wider, from real 
bad 8Mbit/s up to 20Mbit/s on some sports channels.

Thanks to Nvidias VDPAU capabilities there's no difference watching 720p or 
1080i, even 576i looks like HD.

=> https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreports/tr005.pdf

Stations & industries are working on 4k broadcasting, means 3840 × 2160i/p.

fnu


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Klaus Schmidinger]

On 03.01.2017 07:20, VDR User wrote:

...
For those using device bonding, per Klaus's latest post it will live
to see another day in the VDR core. I did, I think (my translator is
horrible), see someone asking @ vdr-portal if it could be put into a
plugin. If so, does that make sense for this kind of feature?


I don't think so (unfortunately).

Klaus

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[VDR User]

Andreas/fnu:
I didn't realize it varied that much from NA/SA/JP vs. EU but I guess
so! Out of curiosity, whats the ballpark average bitrate of your
non-sports 1080p content?

For those using device bonding, per Klaus's latest post it will live
to see another day in the VDR core. I did, I think (my translator is
horrible), see someone asking @ vdr-portal if it could be put into a
plugin. If so, does that make sense for this kind of feature?

-Derek

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Klaus Schmidinger]

I don't mean to disturb the technical aspect of this discussion, but
just wanted to let everybody know that since there still *are* users
who need this feature, it's not going to be removed.

Klaus

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

Derek,

you're right it's maybe possible to stack channels somewhat, but not on the 
user end of the "one cable". It must be "stacked" on the other end of the "one 
cable" and splitted again on the user side of that cable. And here's the 
problem, there are VDR users out there they cannot change the hardware on the 
other end, either not allowed or technically not possible. See my other message 
for the varied reasons ...

As Andreas said we need to deal here with 4 sync levels on the European Astra 
satellites, to cover every all channels, horizontal-high, horizontal-low, 
vertical-high, vertical-low. So, any multiswitch does need 4 input cables from 
LNB, one for each level, to deliver every channel. The Multiswitch can then be 
a model working along CENELEC EN50494/EN50607, SCR/CSS, what does deliver 
multiple user bands over one cable and than splitted on user side.

fnu


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Andreas Regel]

Hi Derek,

Am 02.01.2017 um 17:43 schrieb VDR User:
> Andreas:
> As I said, no "magic" or "luck" is needed. Apparently you've never
> heard of bandstacking. In the case of DVB-S, it's where one side is
> carried in 950-1450Mhz and the other is carried in 1650-2150Mhz - full
> circular lnb on ..one..single..cable,..no..magic. Bandstacking doesn't
> use voltage switching, instead it simply operates at 18v. Power is
> supplied either by the tuner or by a powered switch (if present). It's
> not new and very commonly used here in NA/SA so whatever looking into
> this subject you did, you didn't look very hard. It's reasonable that
> you may live in some old crappy apartment with a horrible setup where
> you truly are without options. You'll have a hard time finding such a
> building here however. For that matter, most apartments have no
> problem with tenants setting up dishes of their own with few
> restrictions.

Then you are lucky in NA/SA. In Europe the full band 950-2100 Mhz is used for 
TV broadcasting and that is true for low band (10700 - 11700 Mhz) and high band 
(11700 - 12700 MhZ) and for vertical and horizontal polarization each, 4 
complete full bands, so no bandstacking is possible.

Best regards,
Andreas

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[VDR User]

Andreas:
As I said, no "magic" or "luck" is needed. Apparently you've never
heard of bandstacking. In the case of DVB-S, it's where one side is
carried in 950-1450Mhz and the other is carried in 1650-2150Mhz - full
circular lnb on ..one..single..cable,..no..magic. Bandstacking doesn't
use voltage switching, instead it simply operates at 18v. Power is
supplied either by the tuner or by a powered switch (if present). It's
not new and very commonly used here in NA/SA so whatever looking into
this subject you did, you didn't look very hard. It's reasonable that
you may live in some old crappy apartment with a horrible setup where
you truly are without options. You'll have a hard time finding such a
building here however. For that matter, most apartments have no
problem with tenants setting up dishes of their own with few
restrictions.

fnu:
I'm talking about reality - equipment that is common here and I have
used myself. Using bandstacking, yes, one coax is all you need for an
entire satellite. The only requirement is that the coax is rated up to
2150Mhz (ie: RG6). Bandstacking needs to be supports at the lnb (about
$5-7) and the switch (from around $20-$80, depending). This equipment
is common and has been used for many years here. That being the case,
I would be very surprised if the same wasn't true for Europeans...
Apparently though it's not since you guys are referring to this as
"magic" and not `reality`.

-Derek

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

> Are you saying people are not allowed to put a switch at the point where the 
> cable plugins into their dvb device? It would be no different that putting an 
> ethernet switch on your ethernet line. You don't need to alter anything aside 
> of instead of the cable going into your dvb card, it goes into your switch. 
> 100% internal, 100% your own hardware.

Derek,

your simple idea sounds fantastic, I really would like to recommend that to all 
these users. Well, we all would have done that already, be sure ... ;-)

Unfortunately the reality is little bit more difficult, one COAX cable is not 
enough to cover all needs for receiving satellite signal. It's enough to power 
one DVB card (or two in case of device bonding), if there's proper 
infrastructure on the other end of the cable, delivering all needs for SAT 
receiption.

Unlike terrestric or cable signals, you cannot just split one COAX cable for 
satellite signals. Each DVB-S/S2 card does need to control individualy its 
parameters to receive a specific transponder/channel. So it's possible to mount 
a splitter, but VDR must be able to control that. VDR can do exactly that with 
device bonding aka LNB sharing ...

fnu


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Andreas Regel]

Hi Derek,

Am 02.01.2017 um 01:46 schrieb VDR User:
>> I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only 
>> one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent 
>> signals. ;-)
> 
> There is no "magic", you probably should read up on switches I guess.

I did and all satellite switches I know need 4 individual inputs, each 
providing one combination of polarization and band. So good look using a switch 
behind a single cable providing one combination of these 4 at one time.

Maybe you are referring to signal splitters to provide one cable to multiple 
tuners, but these limit the received signal to the same combination of 
polarization and band for all of these tuners. And that is exactly the use case 
the device bonding is made for to get the most out of this limitation.

I know that there are ways (OneCable and such) to provide individual signals to 
different tuners via one single cable. But this requires special switches in 
the infrastructure of a building the renter of an apartment is usually not able 
to change.

Best regards,
Andreas

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[VDR User]

> I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only 
> one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent 
> signals. ;-)

There is no "magic", you probably should read up on switches I guess.

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[VDR User]

> pretty simple, there are users who cannot change their SAT infrastructure 
> easily. The reasons are varied, e.g. they are tenants and not allowed to 
> change it by the owners, they own it and cannot change it due to the rules of 
> commonhold association or the own it and the construction of apartment/house 
> doesn't allow changes etc.

Are you saying people are not allowed to put a switch at the point
where the cable plugins into their dvb device? It would be no
different that putting an ethernet switch on your ethernet line. You
don't need to alter anything aside of instead of the cable going into
your dvb card, it goes into your switch. 100% internal, 100% your own
hardware.

-Derek

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Markus Meier]

Happy new year!

 

I second that feedback from forums like vdr-portal.de would probably be more significant.

 

I have been using the old LNB-sharing patch for years and really appreciated when device bonding became part of vdr itself. I am still using the feature and find it is one of the cool things about vdr.

 

All the best,

 

Michael

 

Gesendet: Sonntag, 01. Januar 2017 um 19:06 Uhr
Von: "Andreas Regel" <andreas.re...@gmx.de>
An: vdr@linuxtv.org
Betreff: Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

Am 01.01.2017 um 18:36 schrieb VDR User:
>> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.
>
> Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it
> still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just
> use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required."
>
> One of the main purposes of a switch is to feed multiple tuners from a
> single cable so it's not like device bonding is a vital feature. The
> pros don't seem to outweigh the cons but if enough people actually use
> it it sounds like Klaus will take it into consideration.
>
> -Derek

Hi Derek,

I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent signals. ;-)

And, no I am not using this feature and I guess most people subscribed to this list don't use it, too. But there are much more VDR users out there, so asking here may not be representative.

Best regards
Andreas

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr




___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Andreas Regel]

Am 01.01.2017 um 18:36 schrieb VDR User:
>> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still 
>> using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.
> 
> Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it
> still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just
> use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required."
> 
> One of the main purposes of a switch is to feed multiple tuners from a
> single cable so it's not like device bonding is a vital feature. The
> pros don't seem to outweigh the cons but if enough people actually use
> it it sounds like Klaus will take it into consideration.
> 
> -Derek

Hi Derek,

I would like to know which magic switch behind a single cable receiving only 
one polarization/band allows feeding multiple tuners with independent signals. 
;-)

And, no I am not using this feature and I guess most people subscribed to this 
list don't use it, too. But there are much more VDR users out there, so asking 
here may not be representative.

Best regards
Andreas

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

Derek,

pretty simple, there are users who cannot change their SAT infrastructure 
easily. The reasons are varied, e.g. they are tenants and not allowed to change 
it by the owners, they own it and cannot change it due to the rules of 
commonhold association or the own it and the construction of apartment/house 
doesn't allow changes etc.

Unlike USA, Canada, not many people own houses in Europe or are living in 
houses with that flexibility.

You're right, to have one cable for each DVB adapter is nice to have, but is 
sometimes not doable. The individuals who can do, will run decent SAT 
infrastructure, for sure.

fnu


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[VDR User]

> they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still 
> using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.

Not sure why you didn't mention that earlier but aside of that it
still doesn't answer this part: "I'd like to know why they don't just
use a switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required."

One of the main purposes of a switch is to feed multiple tuners from a
single cable so it's not like device bonding is a vital feature. The
pros don't seem to outweigh the cons but if enough people actually use
it it sounds like Klaus will take it into consideration.

-Derek

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

Derek,

they do in vdr-portal.de ... as I already do remember a bunch of users still 
using that function and the reasons why, so no what-if-scenarios.

fnu


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[VDR User]

There's no point in worrying about what-if scenarios, actual real
world usage is what matters. Klaus is giving those who use device
bonding the chance to speak up now. If there's very little-to-no
interest in it, it's gone. Unless I've misunderstood the intention
here. If there rally is someone out there who only has 1 cable and for
some reason can't run more, I'd like to know why they don't just use a
switch. Simple, cheap, easy, and no complex code required.

-Derek

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

> So I take it you yourself are *not* using this feature, right?

Not active anymore, but in the past for many years, just up to a couple of 
years ago for my development machine.

Getting rid of that feature may also causing the comeback of any sort of patch, 
maybe causing other issue, nobody can control ...

As I said just my 2 cents.

Cheers
Frank


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[Klaus Schmidinger]

On 01.01.2017 13:57, fnu wrote:

Hi Klaus,

well, you're right it's a hack, but IMHO not really an ugly one. A similar 
function is up today part of some premium products from Loewe or Metz, bonding 
two DVB-S/S2 tuners.

Originally it was limited to two devices, what really can make sense. I have 
never seen any reason to make that bonding available almost unlimited. For me 
it doesn't make sense to tie more than two adapters onto same ZF level.


Well, whether it's two or more devices doesn't really make a big difference
when it comes to the code complexity.


And you're right, today seems with SCR (EN50494 & EN50607) or SAT>IP more 
elegant solutions available.


Absolutely.


But, it would be cool to keep it for that specific two DVB-S/S2 tuner setup, if possible. 
There might be people out there, having just one SAT cable in their apartment and not the 
possibility to change the that. They would keep their chance to run "1,5 
DVB-S/S2" adapters with VDR ...


So I take it you yourself are *not* using this feature, right?

Klaus

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr

Re: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB sharing)?

[fnu]

Hi Klaus,

well, you're right it's a hack, but IMHO not really an ugly one. A similar 
function is up today part of some premium products from Loewe or Metz, bonding 
two DVB-S/S2 tuners.

Originally it was limited to two devices, what really can make sense. I have 
never seen any reason to make that bonding available almost unlimited. For me 
it doesn't make sense to tie more than two adapters onto same ZF level. And 
you're right, today seems with SCR (EN50494 & EN50607) or SAT>IP more elegant 
solutions available.

But, it would be cool to keep it for that specific two DVB-S/S2 tuner setup, if 
possible. There might be people out there, having just one SAT cable in their 
apartment and not the possibility to change the that. They would keep their 
chance to run "1,5 DVB-S/S2" adapters with VDR ...

Just my two cents.

Happy new year 2017 to all VDR fans following that Mailingslist.

Cheers
Frank

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: vdr [mailto:vdr-boun...@linuxtv.org] Im Auftrag von Klaus Schmidinger
Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. Januar 2017 13:29
An: VDR Mailing List 
Betreff: [vdr] [POLL] Is anybody actually using "device bonding" (aka "LNB 
sharing)?

Implementing "device bonding" (formerly known as "LNB sharing") has had quite 
an impact on VDR's dvbdevice.c, and made the code quite a bit more complex. 
Since this feature is really just an ugly hack, and it makes much more sense to 
provide each device with its own antenna cable, rather that connecting two or 
more devices to the same cable and having to limit them to the same 
polarization and frequency band, I'd very much like to remove that code from 
VDR's source.

I would therefore like to know if there are any users who actually use this, 
and *really* need it.

Klaus

___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr


___
vdr mailing list
vdr@linuxtv.org
https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr