# MoCA Networking/Splitter Type



## SBacklin

The house I'm moving into has splitters that are rated 5-1000MHz. In the various online material I've come across on the issue, MoCA can range into about 1.6GHz. Would I need to replace the splitters that I have now or will the ones rated 1000MHz really be ok?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

1000 MHz will be just fine. Moca "can" go that high, but it almost always effectively works at 1150 MHz by default.


----------



## SBacklin

BigJimOutlaw said:


> 1000 MHz will be just fine. Moca "can" go that high, but it almost always effectively works in the 900-1150 MHz range.


Great, thanks! If in the off chance that they become a hinderance, the next step is getting 2GHz splitters? Though I've read they can become a hinderance on the upstream with cable?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

SBacklin said:


> Great, thanks! If in the off chance that they become a hinderance, the next step is getting 2GHz splitters? Though I've read they can become a hinderance on the upstream with cable?


In the off-chance 1GHz is a problem 1.5GHz, 2 GHz, and 2.4GHz splitters are all easy to find.

If you're referring to the internet upstream, if the moca network is screwing with the internet upstream a POE filter ($8 on ebay) can be added to the coax right before the modem.


----------



## nooneuknow

I strongly recommend against using greater than 1GHz splitters, for MoCA. If you happen to be one of the rare cases, where your incoming RF cable TV uses the whole 1GHz (either a 1GHz RF cable network, or a fiber to RF conversion results in use of the whole 1GHz, I would then say 1.2GHz splitters will help insure the best quality of TV/Modem channels that operate at the top-end of 1GHz.

MoCA is designed to work with 1GHz, and even lesser, splitters. It was designed to be used with existing coax and splitters, as long as they are of decent quality. It operates at such high power levels (not just high frequencies), it will punch right through 1GHz splitters, and any port isolation, like as if they aren't even there.

It's better to have the best quality 1GHz splitters you can get, than spending extra money on 2GHz splitters, which may not be as good, even though they cost more.

The higher the GHz rating of a splitter, the higher the port isolation. You could cause an imbalance and intermodulation problems, by using splitters rated higher than your RF TV and Cable Modem needs. This could result in having to use more PoE filters (besides the actual point of entry), to keep the MoCA out of things without built-in MoCA filters, that can't handle the power and frequencies it uses.

I have been giving this advice for a long time, and have yet to have anybody tell me I was wrong (of those who take my advice, and use it).


----------



## tarheelblue32

nooneuknow said:


> I strongly recommend against using greater than 1GHz splitters, for MoCA. If you happen to be one of the rare cases, where your incoming RF cable TV uses the whole 1GHz (either a 1GHz RF cable network, or a fiber to RF conversion results in use of the whole 1GHz, I would then say 1.2GHz splitters will help insure the best quality of TV/Modem channels that operate at the top-end of 1GHz.
> 
> MoCA is designed to work with 1GHz, and even lesser, splitters. It was designed to be used with existing coax and splitters, as long as they are of decent quality. It operates at such high power levels (not just high frequencies), it will punch right through 1GHz splitters, and any port isolation, like as if they aren't even there.
> 
> It's better to have the best quality 1GHz splitters you can get, than spending extra money on 2GHz splitters, which may not be as good, even though they cost more.
> 
> The higher the GHz rating of a splitter, the higher the port isolation. You could cause an imbalance and intermodulation problems, by using splitters rated higher than your RF TV and Cable Modem needs. This could result in having to use more PoE filters (besides the actual point of entry), to keep the MoCA out of things without built-in MoCA filters, that can't handle the power and frequencies it uses.
> 
> I have been giving this advice for a long time, and have yet to have anybody tell me I was wrong (of those who take my advice, and use it).


I'm not saying that you are "wrong", but I have been using 3GHz splitters and have never experienced any problems. 1GHz splitters will probably work just fine most of the time, but higher frequency splitters probably will too.


----------



## nooneuknow

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm not saying that you are "wrong", but I have been using 3GHz splitters and have never experienced any problems. 1GHz splitters will probably work just fine most of the time, but higher frequency splitters probably will too.


As the OP was concerned about in their second post, that higher-rated splitters might cause issue with the frequencies on the low-end, I figured I'd chime-in.

I've seen cable modems and tuning adapters have to work harder to push the upstream 5-42MHz range signals through 3GHz splitters.

I'm sure a lot of things "work". But, the Roamio was designed around 1GHz being the maximum expected bandwidth of the RF network for non-MoCA signals. One could reasonably expect it might be optimized to work with splitters of 1GHz and lower (but likely not lower than the 860/900MHz splitters found in many markets). MoCA's major appeal was something you could use, with what you already had, as opposed to changing things.

I fail to see any reason to spend money on anything higher than 1.2GHz splitters, when nothing will be gained, and a completely unimpeded MoCA signal passing from IN-OUT or OUT-IN will wind up stronger than the OUT-OUT, due to port isolation, thus not being as well balanced. This is especially likely when using 3GHz splitters, since they generally have a much greater port isolation rating between OUT ports. Things are better balanced MoCA-wise, when sticking with 1 or 1.2GHz splitters.

I generally aim for "working as designed, and within acceptable ranges", than "works".

The port isolation gets you every time. Unless nothing on the MoCA network talks between two OUT ports on any splitter, the MoCA devices will be transmitting at a level that will overcome the port isolation. This tends to be higher on higher frequency splitters, while the same splitters will offer no resistance between IN-OUT/OUT-IN traversals, unlike 1GHz rated splitters, which have some impedance between IN-OUT/OUT/IN when >1GHz frequencies are pushed through. See how the imbalance factors in now?

If somebody says they already have all the 2 or 3 GHz splitters they need, I'm not going to advise them not to use them. I would warn about the port-isolation factor and imbalances, as something to consider, should they have problems later-on, though.

I'm not saying you are wrong in saying it should work. I just wanted to explain my advice, rather than just say "because I said so", when it comes to the question "why?".


----------



## elborak

There are splitters (e.g. this one) that specifically advertise low port-to-port isolation.


----------



## nooneuknow

elborak said:


> There are splitters (e.g. this one) that specifically advertise low port-to-port isolation.


I wouldn't want low port isolation. It's there for a reason. That link is for a specialized splitter, designed for a specific application.

I didn't take much digging, beyond the specs at face-value, to hope that people don't use that one, then come here looking for help, without specifying they used a non-standard splitter (or worse, multiple ones, and/or mix-match and misbalanced due to nonstandard splitters being in the RF network at all).

That splitter has a specific use, and that's the only use I'd recommend it for.

I have a whole box full of splitters that are considered "contraband" by Cox. Keep in mind that if you use splitters your cable provider knows to be problematic, they aren't required to help you if your cable TV or internet doesn't work so well with them (if you insist on using the non-standard splitters). Port-isolation is a good thing, and MoCA can deal with it.

To wrap this up, that splitter from the link is only a whopping 1.5GHz. I'd rather use, and recommend, standardized (for cable providers) 1 or 1.2GHz splitters with high port isolation ratings. MoCA is designed to work with them.


----------



## elborak

nooneuknow said:


> I didn't take much digging, beyond the specs at face-value, to hope that people don't use that one, then come here looking for help, without specifying they used a non-standard splitter (or worse, multiple ones, and/or mix-match and misbalanced due to nonstandard splitters being in the RF network at all).


It's odd to describe something as "non-standard" when no published standard exists (at least that I'm aware of; feel free to correct me).

What specific specs about this splitter do you find inappropriate for a MoCA setup?


----------



## nooneuknow

elborak said:


> It's odd to describe something as "non-standard" when no published standard exists (at least that I'm aware of; feel free to correct me).
> 
> What specific specs about this splitter do you find inappropriate for a MoCA setup?


I spent years worth of time learning about closed RF networks, and why cable providers use what they use, why they don't what they don't, and the intricacies of things like port isolation, RF coupling, intermodulation, and separating facts from BS a cable tech might say, and most would just believe.

What you ask of me, is not as easy as finding a listing for a special-use splitter, then claiming there's nothing non-standard about it.

From the listing your posted the link to: "Low Port to Port Isolation *(for HomePNA communications)*"

I don't have the time to write a book on things that take up multiple books already. *High port-to-port isolation is a good thing.* Apparently HomePNA couldn't make their communications work without lowering it. MoCA was able to without lowering it (which is a better approach). The imbalances I spoke of were only a potential issue when people mistakenly use higher GHz splitters than needed, for MoCA designed to coexist on up to 1GHz RF cable provider networks.

I've posted enough about this in other threads, pre-dating this one. I have other things to do, and other threads to participate in.


----------



## elborak

nooneuknow said:


> What you ask of me, is not as easy as finding a listing for a special-use splitter, then claiming there's nothing non-standard about it.


Quite the contrary, I never claimed there was nothing non-standard about it. You called it non-standard and I was simply inquiring what about it concerned you.

Which you partially answered, thanks.


----------



## nooneuknow

elborak said:


> Quite the contrary, I never claimed there was nothing non-standard about it. You called it non-standard and I was simply inquiring what about it concerned you.
> 
> Which you partially answered, thanks.


If you can't find the rest of the answers you are looking for (specific to MoCA), after some reading of the Wikipedia pages for HomePNA, MoCA, and closed network RF cable TV, I might come back and try to clarify.

It was the "when no published standard exists" part that kind of skewed my response. It's not about a single standard. It's about many standards, and which ones (or parts of them) most cable providers use for their RF networks.

Port isolation is what keeps a cable modem on one out port of a RF splitter from interfering with the cable TV signal going to the TV on the other out port. Grab one of those cheap "Gemeni" brand splitters and try hooking up a cable modem on one port and a TV to the other. You will suddenly appreciate what port isolation is there for. It's the cable modem upstream signal jumping to the TV port that causes the issue, in this example. Raise the quality of the splitter, which tends to mean a higher port isolation factor, and it's not a problem. This is why I keep saying "high port isolation is a good thing".

MoCA was designed to work with what is already there, as opposed to having to change cables and splitters (to a point). That MoCA works by jumping the port isolation, but not causing the ill effects of the cable modem & TV on the same splitter example scenario, is a testament to MoCA, over HomePNA's approach, which would "lower the bar" by lowering the port isolation, leaving the ports more vulnerable to such "crosstalk", from/to anything on the out ports with low isolation.


----------



## lessd

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm not saying that you are "wrong", but I have been using 3GHz splitters and have never experienced any problems. 1GHz splitters will probably work just fine most of the time, but higher frequency splitters probably will too.


Some of the MoCA adapters come with a splitter in the box, it is a 1.2Mhz splitter.


----------



## nooneuknow

lessd said:


> Some of the MoCA adapters come with a splitter in the box, it is a 1.2Mhz splitter.


<ding> <ding> <ding> ...and we have a winner! 

Could you cite known examples of MoCA adapters that include a splitter of 1.0, 1.02, or 1.2 GHz rating, please? That would be good for me (and others) to know, for future reference.

I'm working on a list of all the issues splitters rated greater than 1.2GHz can cause, create, or exacerbate. It gets really bad when 3GHz splitters are used, due to the amount of 2.4GHz traffic in the air, and ingress of those signals having nothing to stop what ingresses from passing freely. Splitters that can't pass the ingressed frequencies help keep ingress from getting very far. Factor in that there's plenty of other frequencies in the air from other sources, above 1.2GHZ, which can ingress, but their range of travel IS limited by 1-1.2GHz splitters, and the case for not using higher-than-needed ratings gets stronger.

Part of why Cox hates finding >1.2GHz splitters in residences is due to most of them being designed for satellite (of those they find, not of those which exist), which have voltage-passing ports, often don't pass the 5-42MHz upstream channels, and even more. I'll just leave it at that (for now).

I wouldn't be surprised if the rare full 1GHz RF network providers, like mine, eventually make 1.2GHz splitters the norm. I only predict this due to the number of "5MHz - 1GHz" & "5MHz - 1002MHz" splitters that fail to play well with the H.264 channels that Cox has placed in the >961MHz space. I see it as more of "the splitters not being tested to work as labeled/rated", than anything else. If moving to splitters labeled/rated "5MHz - 1.2 GHz", insures channels operating above 961MHz will work with all of those splitters, before they find a source of the former that will, that aren't "luck of the draw" on working, or not, I'd place my bet on the latter. It has nothing to do with the >1.0 to 1.2 GHz range, or MoCA (which they use with their own whole home systems, on the same band as retail/TiVo, with 1.0 & 1.02GHz splitters), and everything to do with making sure the non-MoCA frequencies, for TV, work up to the full 1GHz.

One sure-fire way for me to make a cox tech's visit a headache, would be for me to install >1.2GHz rated splitters, and insist the tech leave them in. In reality, this would be more of a headache for me, since Cox has no obligation to do anything if I'm using equipment that doesn't meet their requirements, or is considered "unsupported".


----------



## lessd

nooneuknow said:


> <ding> <ding> <ding> ...and we have a winner!
> 
> Could you cite known examples of MoCA adapters that include a splitter of 1.0, 1.02, or 1.2 GHz rating, please? That would be good for me (and others) to know, for future reference.
> 
> I'm working on a list of all the issues splitters rated greater than 1.2GHz can cause, create, or exacerbate. It gets really bad when 3GHz splitters are used, due to the amount of 2.4GHz traffic in the air, and ingress of those signals having nothing to stop what ingresses from passing freely. Splitters that can't pass the ingressed frequencies help keep ingress from getting very far. Factor in that there's plenty of other frequencies in the air from other sources, above 1.2GHZ, which can ingress, but their range of travel IS limited by 1-1.2GHz splitters, and the case for not using higher-than-needed ratings gets stronger.
> 
> Part of why Cox hates finding >1.2GHz splitters in residences is due to most of them being designed for satellite (of those they find, not of those which exist), which have voltage-passing ports, often don't pass the 5-42MHz upstream channels, and even more. I'll just leave it at that (for now).
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the rare full 1GHz RF network providers, like mine, eventually make 1.2GHz splitters the norm. I only predict this due to the number of "5MHz - 1GHz" & "5MHz - 1002MHz" splitters that fail to play well with the H.264 channels that Cox has placed in the >961MHz space. I see it as more of "the splitters not being tested to work as labeled/rated", than anything else. If moving to splitters labeled/rated "5MHz - 1.2 GHz", insures channels operating above 961MHz will work with all of those splitters, before they find a source of the former that will, that aren't "luck of the draw" on working, or not, I'd place my bet on the latter. It has nothing to do with the >1.0 to 1.2 GHz range, or MoCA (which they use with their own whole home systems, on the same band as retail/TiVo, with 1.0 & 1.02GHz splitters), and everything to do with making sure the non-MoCA frequencies, for TV, work up to the full 1GHz.
> 
> One sure-fire way for me to make a cox tech's visit a headache, would be for me to install >1.2GHz rated splitters, and insist the tech leave them in. In reality, this would be more of a headache for me, since Cox has no obligation to do anything if I'm using equipment that doesn't meet their requirements, or is considered "unsupported".


Go to Amazon on this link as the included splitter is a 1.2Ghz, http://www.amazon.com/Actiontec-Ethernet-Adapter-without-Routers/dp/B008EQ4BQG/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1407172228&sr=1-1&keywords=moca+adapter

<ding> <ding> OH! hell with this.


----------



## nooneuknow

lessd said:


> Go to Amazon on this link as the included splitter is a 1.2Ghz, http://www.amazon.com/Actiontec-Ethernet-Adapter-without-Routers/dp/B008EQ4BQG/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1407172228&sr=1-1&keywords=moca+adapter
> 
> <ding> <ding> OH! hell with this.


Thanks...

I find it just lovely, how the "other people who bought this, also bought..." recommendations list "MoCA-enabled splitters".

Just great... That's more material that people trying to help, with the best of intentions, will see, then post advice to "go buy MoCA-enabled splitters". Then there will be the people asking "what MoCA enabled splitters do we recommend for use with TiVo?".

Maybe I should start selling "powerline-enabled home wiring", and set up a business to install it. Then there's "wireless-enabled air" I could sell, too...

"OH! hell with this" is about where I'm at. This feels like trying to convince people that a HDMI cable will either work, or it won't. But, there's so many businesses that rely on selling a $2.50 cable for $25, or $250, by calling it "premium", it just becomes impossible to compete with misinformation...

Sure, there's HDMI cables that have such terrible build quality, that it becomes hit and miss on how many out of a batch will work, and will last. Splitters are a lot like that, too...


----------



## elborak

At least we don't have Monster splitters (yet).


----------



## lessd

nooneuknow said:


> Thanks...
> 
> I find it just lovely, how the "other people who bought this, also bought..." recommendations list "MoCA-enabled splitters".
> 
> Just great... That's more material that people trying to help, with the best of intentions, will see, then post advice to "go buy MoCA-enabled splitters". Then there will be the people asking "what MoCA enabled splitters do we recommend for use with TiVo?".
> 
> Maybe I should start selling "powerline-enabled home wiring", and set up a business to install it. Then there's "wireless-enabled air" I could sell, too...
> 
> "OH! hell with this" is about where I'm at. This feels like trying to convince people that a HDMI cable will either work, or it won't. But, there's so many businesses that rely on selling a $2.50 cable for $25, or $250, by calling it "premium", it just becomes impossible to compete with misinformation...
> 
> Sure, there's HDMI cables that have such terrible build quality, that it becomes hit and miss on how many out of a batch will work, and will last. Splitters are a lot like that, too...


To be clear the 1.2Ghx splitter came with these MoCA adapters, the spec on the included splitter is not listed on Amazon. I have no idea about what the best splitters are, I just changes the few I had to 1.2Ghz and the MoCA is working great as all signals are from 250 to 277 on the TiVo MoCA screen. I not going to test out if the cable co splitters at 1Ghz would have worked as well, or better, but as of now I get xfer speed of about 90Mb/sec on a HD xfer between two Roamio Plus units.


----------



## nooneuknow

lessd said:


> To be clear the 1.2Ghx splitter came with these MoCA adapters, the spec on the included splitter is not listed on Amazon. I have no idea about what the best splitters are, I just changes the few I had to 1.2Ghz and the MoCA is working great as all signals are from 250 to 277 on the TiVo MoCA screen. I not going to test out if the cable co splitters at 1Ghz would have worked as well, or better, but as of now I get xfer speed of about 90Mb/sec on a HD xfer between two Roamio Plus units.


To be clear, I don't have any disagreements or arguments, with you, in this thread.

I was just typing out loud, what I thought, after I explored the link, and saw "MoCA-enabled" splitters in the suggestion list.


----------



## nooneuknow

elborak said:


> At least we don't have Monster splitters (yet).


Actually, we do. You were just the first the bring up the "pay for the brand, not the product" company, which I'm certain nothing has changed with, or about.


----------



## aaronwt

nooneuknow said:


> <ding> <ding> <ding> ...and we have a winner!
> 
> Could you cite known examples of MoCA adapters that include a splitter of 1.0, 1.02, or 1.2 GHz rating, please? That would be good for me (and others) to know, for future reference.
> 
> I'm working on a list of all the issues splitters rated greater than 1.2GHz can cause, create, or exacerbate. It gets really bad when 3GHz splitters are used, due to the amount of 2.4GHz traffic in the air, and ingress of those signals having nothing to stop what ingresses from passing freely. Splitters that can't pass the ingressed frequencies help keep ingress from getting very far. Factor in that there's plenty of other frequencies in the air from other sources, above 1.2GHZ, which can ingress, but their range of travel IS limited by 1-1.2GHz splitters, and the case for not using higher-than-needed ratings gets stronger.
> 
> Part of why Cox hates finding >1.2GHz splitters in residences is due to most of them being designed for satellite (of those they find, not of those which exist), which have voltage-passing ports, often don't pass the 5-42MHz upstream channels, and even more. I'll just leave it at that (for now).
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the rare full 1GHz RF network providers, like mine, eventually make 1.2GHz splitters the norm. I only predict this due to the number of "5MHz - 1GHz" & "5MHz - 1002MHz" splitters that fail to play well with the H.264 channels that Cox has placed in the >961MHz space. I see it as more of "the splitters not being tested to work as labeled/rated", than anything else. If moving to splitters labeled/rated "5MHz - 1.2 GHz", insures channels operating above 961MHz will work with all of those splitters, before they find a source of the former that will, that aren't "luck of the draw" on working, or not, I'd place my bet on the latter. It has nothing to do with the >1.0 to 1.2 GHz range, or MoCA (which they use with their own whole home systems, on the same band as retail/TiVo, with 1.0 & 1.02GHz splitters), and everything to do with making sure the non-MoCA frequencies, for TV, work up to the full 1GHz.
> 
> One sure-fire way for me to make a cox tech's visit a headache, would be for me to install >1.2GHz rated splitters, and insist the tech leave them in. In reality, this would be more of a headache for me, since Cox has no obligation to do anything if I'm using equipment that doesn't meet their requirements, or is considered "unsupported".


FiOS installed an 8-way 1Ghz splitter in my condo in 2007 to use with MoCA. No idea if they still use 1Ghz splitters. But that is what I have used over the years and it has worked perfectly fine with MoCA using a channel at 1150Mhz. Recently when I switched to using my Minis with MoCA I switched out that 8-way splitter to a 1.2 Ghz splitter. From a user view i saw zero difference. But when I checked the network MoCA status the max PHY rate was listed around 290Mb/s with the 1.2Ghz splitter instead of around 275Mb/s that was listed when the 1Ghz splitter was used. I don't remember if I kept the 1.2Ghz splitter in use or switched back to the 1Ghz splitter. I put my Roamio Pro back on GigE after the last software update. So only my three Minis and my Actiontec MoCA adapter with GigE ports is using MoCA.


----------



## leepoffaith

I'm fairly new to Tivo (I've had it 3-4 months), but I can tell you that I had the same questions and concerns as you regarding splitters and Moca connectivity. I did a ton of research and finally purchased this splitter: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0045DVIP4/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1 . It's very inexpensive and it's what DirecTV installers use. They also use Moca for their boxes so they need to have good connectivity. I've had absolutely no issues what so ever after installing this and I highly recommend it. I believe it's rated 2-2150 mhz.


----------



## lessd

aaronwt said:


> FiOS installed an 8-way 1Ghz splitter in my condo in 2007 to use with MoCA. No idea if they still use 1Ghz splitters. But that is what I have used over the years and it has worked perfectly fine with MoCA using a channel at 1150Mhz. Recently when I switched to using my Minis with MoCA I switched out that 8-way splitter to a 1.2 Ghz splitter. From a user view i saw zero difference. But when I checked the network MoCA status the max PHY rate was listed around 290Mb/s with the 1.2Ghz splitter instead of around 275Mb/s that was listed when the 1Ghz splitter was used. I don't remember if I kept the 1.2Ghz splitter in use or switched back to the 1Ghz splitter. I put my Roamio Pro back on GigE after the last software update. So only my three Minis and my Actiontec MoCA adapter with GigE ports is using MoCA.


Has anybody tried MoCA at ch above 15, the TiVo default.


----------



## AdamNJ

fyi, the 1ghz splitters are only tested to be within tolerences for up to 1ghz...but they don't block the higher frequencies or anything,
i am using 1ghz regal splitters without issue and my moca is great.


----------



## nooneuknow

leepoffaith said:


> I'm fairly new to Tivo (I've had it 3-4 months), but I can tell you that I had the same questions and concerns as you regarding splitters and Moca connectivity. I did a ton of research and finally purchased this splitter: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0045DVIP4/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1 . It's very inexpensive and it's what DirecTV installers use. They also use Moca for their boxes so they need to have good connectivity. I've had absolutely no issues what so ever after installing this and I highly recommend it. I believe it's rated 2-2150 mhz.


For somebody who claims to have done their research, you chose poorly.

These satellite-centric splitters are exactly the kind of splitter I've been talking about avoiding, due to their satellite specific designs. Cox won't allow these, under any circumstances, on their cable network. They have good reasons not to. It may seem extreme. But, they don't charge to install the right ones. They want the right splitters being used, that badly.

Just because satellite providers have their own brand of MoCA, doesn't mean their splitters are a good choice for cable TV network MoCA.

If you want to use them, so be it. Recommending them to others, who might not know any better, and might not get the same results, is where I draw the line.


----------



## nooneuknow

AdamNJ said:


> fyi, the 1ghz splitters are only tested to be within tolerences for up to 1ghz...but they don't block the higher frequencies or anything,
> i am using 1ghz regal splitters without issue and my moca is great.


No arguments here, but a few comments, some not directly at you:

Have you delved-into how RF splitters actually work? There are no direct connections. It's via inductive coupling. While a 1GHz splitter may pass 1.5GHz, without requiring amplification, they have their limits, based on the components used to build them (and the specs they are built to). The reason MoCA gets through is due to the sheer amplitude (power) of the MoCA frequencies, which is much higher power than the splitters were spec'd out to work with (and there's nothing wrong with this).

Since MoCA was designed to do exactly this, it's silly to raise the splitter specs, just because MoCA is going to be added to the equation. I find it somewhat amusing, that a standard is born, which is designed to work with what is already there (in most cases), yet many people fixate on the frequencies MoCA uses, change-out their splitters, and advise others to do so. All this because some read the cliff-notes on MoCA, but have no understanding of how it truly works, or how the splitters do, MoCA aside.

MoCA could have been something that required changing splitters, but was designed to make that unnecessary. But, heck, if people want complicated, let the "MoCA-enabled" (BS) splitters roll, and this can be the next consumer rip-off category, like HDMI cables have been.

I am aware that I keep repeating myself in this thread. It's all I can really do. I'm not going to start making things up, for every "Joe", that wanders in and posts "this one (link here) worked for me, so I highly recommend it".

At some point, I'll probably just bail, unsubscribe, and try not to care. It's not like this is rewarding, or I'm in the business of anything, where what I post would benefit me. OTOH, if people are recommending satellite splitters here, and other ones not typically found in most homes, and people use them, then start posting in the other threads about their MoCA problems, it adds to the difficulty in helping those people (who might have got their splitters based on what somebody posted here).


----------



## L David Matheny

nooneuknow said:


> Have you delved-into how RF splitters actually work? There are no direct connections. It's via inductive coupling. While a 1GHz splitter may pass 1.5GHz, without requiring amplification, they have their limits, based on the components used to build them (and the specs they are built to). The reason MoCA gets through is due to the sheer amplitude (power) of the MoCA frequencies, which is much higher power than the splitters were spec'd out to work with (and there's nothing wrong with this).


If the inductive coupling involved a transformer with a core, I would think that saturation of the core could cause distortion, but I guess these splitters don't have cores, so I'll accept that the hot signals cause no problems _for the splitters_. My worry would be that the hot MoCA signals could overload input stages designed to receive RF TV signals. Are those generally immune to overload from signals in the MoCA band(s)?



nooneuknow said:


> At some point, I'll probably just bail, unsubscribe, and try not to care.


Don't do that. Just kick back with a beer, and watch with amusement. If people follow bad advice, that decision will provide them with its own reward.


----------



## nooneuknow

L David Matheny said:


> If the inductive coupling involved a transformer with a core, I would think that saturation of the core could cause distortion, but I guess these splitters don't have cores, so I'll accept that the hot signals cause no problems _for the splitters_. My worry would be that the hot MoCA signals could overload input stages designed to receive RF TV signals. Are those generally immune to overload from signals in the MoCA band(s)?


Splitter technology has actually advanced beyond simple inductive coupling. I just don't feel enough understand inductive coupling, on it's own, which makes it seem futile to explain what else goes on.

Peel the back off a splitter from the early days of cable, and all you will find inside are very thin copper wires, and ferrites they are wrapped through (no PCB at all). Isolation (beyond using coupling) was absent. Fast-forward to when most everything had gone partially digital, and a splitter looking the same on the outside, will have a PCB inside, with many stages (like you say) of coupling (some ferrite core, some not), added port isolation, a great deal of protection against many things, and use-specific features, like DC pass-through (required for satellite-specific use), a different optional DC pass-through (specifically for amps), and optional filtering/trapping, often use-specific. Much of the newer splitter technology is use-specific.

I can understand your concerns about MoCA possibly overloading (thus stressing) components not designed to deal with MoCA. But, there's plenty of protection in-place, and MoCA wouldn't have been allowed to be released into the wild, without testing for concerns like yours. If you are good at identifying very miniaturized components, I'd suggest opening up some splitters, and taking a tour. Poke a hole through the back, in a corner, pry the corner up, and the back will roll open like a sardine can.



L David Matheny said:


> Don't do that. Just kick back with a beer, and watch with amusement. If people follow bad advice, that decision will provide them with its own reward.


I tend to be very active in the MoCA help threads here. It's often not the easiest subject to help with, due to the variables. This thread has me feeling like I need to ask for pictures of what splitters people are using.

If these same people are using satellite splitters, HomePNA splitters, and other ones that are not designed, use-specific for cable TV, as I'm always seeing (improperly) recommended by those who can't understand how 1.650GHz MoCA frequencies can pass through even an 860MHz splitter, and work as designed to, providing help gets harder, due to the added variables.

Often, by the time people ask for help, they wind up posting "I already bought the splitters recommended here, but my MoCA isn't working right" or "but now my cable TV isn't working right".

It used to be all about placement of PoE filters, and keeping amps upstream of where MoCA needs to travel. Now, it's more clear than ever, checking for victims of bad advice needs just as much attention.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Okay so it seems that people more knowledgeable than I on this subject have pointed out the disadvantages of using the 2 Ghz or 3 Ghz satellite splitters with digital cable and MoCA. Assuming that is correct, would there be any specific advantages or disadvantages with using the 1.2 Ghz "MoCA enabling" splitters with digital cable and MoCA rather than the standard 1 Ghz splitters?


----------



## nooneuknow

tarheelblue32 said:


> Okay so it seems that people more knowledgeable than I on this subject have pointed out the disadvantages of using the 2 Ghz or 3 Ghz satellite splitters with digital cable and MoCA. Assuming that is correct, would there be any advantages or disadvantages with using the 1.2 Ghz splitters with digital cable and MoCA over the standard 1 Ghz splitters?


Minimal possible advantages, and no disadvantages, IMO.

I'd consider them pretty close to equal. But, if I ran out of 1GHz ones, and needed to restock, I'd consider 1.2GHz, if the price difference was reasonable. I'm sure some 1GHz ones would test equally against some 1.2GHz ones, due to tolerances allowed in quality assurance.

I would just make sure what I'd buy was made for cable TV, and has at least 130dB of port isolation (the minimum you would want). I think I spelled-out the other factors/critera enough times. 

Anything above 1.2GHz isn't going to improve anything, be it TV, internet, or MoCA networking. arronwt's post is an example of minimal changes that might have happened if he'd just had his old 1GHz splitter replaced with a new one, rather than a 1.2GHz replacement. The "improvement" was negligible enough to be in that range of possibility.


----------



## tarheelblue32

nooneuknow said:


> Minimal possible advantages, and no disadvantages, IMO.
> 
> I'd consider them pretty close to equal. But, if I ran out of 1GHz ones, and needed to restock, I'd consider 1.2GHz, if the price difference was reasonable. I'm sure some 1GHz ones would test equally against some 1.2GHz ones, due to tolerances allowed in quality assurance.
> 
> I would just make sure what I'd buy was made for cable TV, and has at least 130dB of port isolation (the minimum you would want). I think I spelled-out the other factors/critera enough times.
> 
> Anything above 1.2GHz isn't going to improve anything, be it TV, internet, or MoCA networking. arronwt's post is an example of minimal changes that might have happened if he'd just had his old 1GHz splitter replaced with a new one, rather than a 1.2GHz replacement. The "improvement" was negligible enough to be in that range of possibility.


That's kind of the impression I was getting by reading all the other posts. If 1.2 Ghz splitters are no worse than 1 Ghz splitters, but have the potential of being slightly better for MoCA, then I think I would be inclined to go with the 1.2 Ghz splitters.


----------



## nooneuknow

tarheelblue32 said:


> That's kind of the impression I was getting by reading all the other posts. If 1.2 Ghz splitters are no worse than 1 Ghz splitters, but have the potential of being slightly better for MoCA, then I think I would be inclined to go with the 1.2 Ghz splitters.


Exactly. It's up to you to decide if any price difference is worth that amount of being potentially slightly better.


----------



## lessd

nooneuknow said:


> Exactly. It's up to you to decide if any price difference is worth that amount of being potentially slightly better.


A quick look at splitters and I get a splitting headache, 1Ghz splitters are all over the place in price, and 2Ghz are easy to find, 1.2Ghz not so easy, some 2Ghz cost less then some 1Ghz splitters, but you can't get at the quality of any splitter with any ease. Most people will not have that many splitters that cost difference will make much difference.


----------



## elborak

lessd said:


> 1Ghz splitters are all over the place in price, and 2Ghz are easy to find, 1.2Ghz not so easy


MCR brand 5-1200MHz splitters are readily available on eBay and @ Amazon for basically the same price as 1GHz splitters.

I'm not recommending them as I have no first-hand experience with them; just offering some information.


----------



## tarheelblue32

elborak said:


> MCR brand 5-1200MHz splitters are readily available on eBay and @ Amazon for basically the same price as 1GHz splitters.
> 
> I'm not recommending them as I have no first-hand experience with them; just offering some information.


Here are the MCR brand 5-1200MHz splitter specs if anyone is interested in looking at them and commenting on them. I really don't know what most of the stuff means.

http://www.amt.com/images/products//MCR-B-ME-2E_Data_Sheet.pdf


----------



## aaronwt

The 1.2ghz splitter I got from Amazon works fine. It was an eight way splitter.


----------



## nooneuknow

lessd said:


> A quick look at splitters and I get a splitting headache, 1Ghz splitters are all over the place in price, and 2Ghz are easy to find, 1.2Ghz not so easy, some 2Ghz cost less then some 1Ghz splitters, but you can't get at the quality of any splitter with any ease. Most people will not have that many splitters that cost difference will make much difference.


I know the feeling. If you go down the rabbit hole I did, get ready for a migraine, and a long one.

That's why I recommend 1GHz splitters, but don't exclude 1.2GHz from being acceptable. Saying they aren't would be untrue.

Since 1.2GHz can't hurt anything, and might insure that people on 1GHz cable networks (like mine) don't have problems with channels really close to the 1GHz mark, they have a place. This, alone, has nothing to do with MoCA, though. The added 200MHz is only for Cable TV(QAM)/DOCSIS signals, operating at power levels within the expected min-max range of inbound/upstream signals, and outbound/return signals, and has no true correlation to MoCA, unless the manufacturer specifies they have created a lower port-isolation band-pass ONLY in the 860-1200MHz range, specifically for MoCA. Don't assume this is the case. Check the specs.

Any 1.2GHz splitters that come in the box with a MoCA adapter are likely only there as part of a deal, so the MoCA device mfg gets a great price, and the supplier of those included splitters hopes that will lead to people who need more splitters to buy 1.2GHz ones, like came with their MoCA adapter.

*Even with Cox (in my region) having a full 1GHz network, and using all of it, plus using MoCA in the same band-range as retail & TiVo does, they still use 1.0 & 1.02GHz splitters, even with their whole home DVR package, which uses MoCA.* They don't (yet) use ones with the 860-1200MHz band-pass with lower port isolation, in that spectrum.

*The 130dB isolation (often labeled as "RFI -130dB") is a starting point as a reliable indicator of quality*

*Higher port-to-port isolation is better* (unless you are looking for low isolation ones, for some oddball standard, like HomePNA, or some other proprietary data-over-coax scheme, where they can't get past the industry standard isolation for digital cable, for home network data). *The 860-1200MHz spectrum can have lower port isolation, to help MoCA, and maintain high isolation in the lower spectrum, in true "MoCA-enhanced" splitters.* Note that I call it "enhanced", not "enabled", which is a misleading designation, since almost any splitter rated at, or above, 860MHz (preferably 1GHz) is likely to work with MoCA, if of adequate quality.

*Here are some brands I know work*, in order of best what Cox has used, with most recent/prominent listed first:

CommScope (bought the SVI company)
Signal Vision Inc. (bought by CommScope)
Antronix
Holland Electronics, LLC

*Properties listed in order of importance* (comes after being an established good brand):

Is it designed/designated for digital cable (not "universal" or special-use designated)?
Does the mfg guarantee they meet/exceed their labeled rating?
Does the mfg test every one (certify)?

*Added notes: Thanks to tarheelblue32, a splitter worthy of being called "MoCA-enhanced" has been found, if it lives-up to it's specs.*

Link: http://www.amt.com/images/products//MCR-B-ME-2E_Data_Sheet.pdf

Feel free to post links to the best deals on 1GHz, 1.02GHz, or 1.2GHz splitters you can find. I'll take a look, and look for any reason not to use them.


----------



## nooneuknow

tarheelblue32 said:


> Here are the MCR brand 5-1200MHz splitter specs if anyone is interested in looking at them and commenting on them. I really don't know what most of the stuff means.
> 
> http://www.amt.com/images/products//MCR-B-ME-2E_Data_Sheet.pdf


Those look pretty solid. The specs read very good (coming from somebody who knows what it all means). I'd try them, if the price is right.

I see they have actually done something to help with MoCA, by lowering port-port isolation ONLY in the 860-1200MHz range. By doing it as a "pass-band" range, and not lowering isolation on the lower frequencies, this may be the first splitter datasheet that lists something truly MoCA relevant.

Good catch! :up:


----------



## nooneuknow

After doing some datasheet comparison, the MCR splitters don't drop the port isolation in the 860-1200MHz range of their alleged "MoCA band-pass" enough to make a real-world difference, when using them with MoCA (or anything else).

While they are the right price, for those wanting 1.2GHz splitters (essentially the same price, or lower than, many 1GHz splitters), I don't expect any miracles happening, from using them (over another 1.2GHz product).

It would appear that they intended to market their splitters as "Moca-enabled/enhanced/friendly", and realized some might actually look at the datasheets, in order to verify there was anything different about them.

I'm not saying not to buy/use them. I'm only saying "don't expect any MoCA miracles, or a cure for something else hindering your MoCA performance/reliability". They will likely perform/function the same as 1.2GHz splitters that don't target market for MoCA users.

At least these have the specs I would recommend, are 1.2GHz, are reasonably priced, and are available to buy.

They get my approval (as long as they meet the published specs), as a good all-around choice, even-though the technical data is marketing-fluffed.

Now we just need some reports from people who have used them and/or are using them. If no problems are reported, all that's left for this thread is spotting any other reasonably-priced, available to buy, 1.2GHz splitters, to create a list we can all agree are good choices. I think that sort of thing has sometimes happened on TCF, right?


----------



## aaronwt

I just looked at my 8-way, 1.2Ghz splitter. It is an MCR that I got from Amazon at the end of April.
This is the one I have.
http://www.amazon.com/Outdoor-Perfo...529&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=mcr+1.2ghz+splitter

I paid $10 for it with two day Amazon Prime shipping.(I see it is $9 now with two day Amazon Prime shipping)

As I mentioned before, I saw no difference from a user point of view. Everything worked the same as before. But I did see a difference when looking at the MoCA status on the TiVos. Instead of a max PHY rate of around 275Mb/s with the 1Ghz, 8-way splitter I had. The Max PHY rate listed was around 290Mb/s with the MCR 8-way splitter.

EDIT: I just looked at the status again from the Mini in this room. One of my nodes is showing a PHY rate of 292 Mb/s for both TX and RX. Another node is 292 Mb/s for TX and 282 Mb/s for RX. And a third node is showing 272 Mb/s TX and 292 Mb/s RX.


----------



## nooneuknow

aaronwt said:


> I just looked at my 8-way, 1.2Ghz splitter. It is an MCR that I got from Amazon at the end of April.
> This is the one I have.
> http://www.amazon.com/Outdoor-Perfo...529&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=mcr+1.2ghz+splitter
> 
> I paid $10 for it with two day Amazon Prime shipping.(I see it is $9 now with two day Amazon Prime shipping)
> 
> As I mentioned before, I saw no difference from a user point of view. Everything worked the same as before. But I did see a difference when looking at the MoCA status on the TiVos. Instead of a max PHY rate of around 275Mb/s with the 1Ghz, 8-way splitter I had. The Max PHY rate listed was around 290Mb/s with the MCR 8-way splitter.
> 
> EDIT: I just looked at the status again from the Mini in this room. One of my nodes is showing a PHY rate of 292 Mb/s for both TX and RX. Another node is 292 Mb/s for TX and 282 Mb/s for RX. And a third node is showing 272 Mb/s TX and 292 Mb/s RX.


Yeah, it seems we have a "winner". Now, it's just down to alternatives, since people like to have choices, and to not rely on just one source always having enough stock to supply individual customers, along with bulk buyers.


----------



## nooneuknow

Here's a reason why lowered port isolation in the 860-1200MHz range might be undesirable (for some), thus a likely reason why MCR claims they tweaked it lower, but the port isolation specs in their alleged "MoCA pass-band" range are so close to other splitters, before the "MoCA-________ splitter" marketing campaign began:

Channel	Lock Status	Modulation	Channel ID	Frequency	Power	SNR	Correctables	Uncorrectables
1	Locked	QAM256	37	813000000 Hz	-4.0 dBmV	37.7 dB	18	0
2	Locked	QAM256	38 819000000 Hz	-4.2 dBmV	37.4 dB	37	0
3	Locked	QAM256	39	825000000 Hz	-4.3 dBmV	37.4 dB	43	0
4	Locked	QAM256	40	831000000 Hz	-4.4 dBmV	37.3 dB	20	0
5	Locked	QAM256	45	861000000 Hz	-4.4 dBmV	35.4 dB	0	0
6	Locked	QAM256	46	867000000 Hz	-4.7 dBmV	35.3 dB	0	0
7	Locked	QAM256	47	873000000 Hz	-5.1 dBmV	35.1 dB	0	0
8	Locked	QAM256	48	879000000 Hz	-5.2 dBmV	35.1 dB	0	0

As you can see, my cable modem is operating in the 861-879MHz range. On top of this there are H.264 channels beginning at 961MHz.

In this (my) scenario, I'd intentionally avoid a splitter that intentionally lowers port isolation (unless limited to the 1000-1200MHz range), which could result in MoCA, my Cable Modem, and my TV signals causing problems for each other.

This is because I'm on a 1GHz cable network. If I was on a 860MHz cable network, this potential issue would not exist.

The whole "MoCA-__________ splitter" marketing thing is just another mess like happened with HDMI cables...

I can't say "use these", nor can I say "avoid these if...". *All I can say is "I don't recommend paying a premium for splitters that advertise special MoCA enhancements. MoCA was designed to avoid this BS, just like HDMI tried so hard to stop such BS marketing".* What's next, nitrogen-filled cases, or "oxygen free", like speaker wires? *At least MCR's pricing is within reason. It's probably the only thing saving them from my disapproval.*

Yes, I'm aware my signal values are not ideal, in this copy/paste. Cox is preparing for another internet speed double, which always results in the need to frequently force my cable modem to re-range (by rebooting it, after resetting it to defaults), while they run around tweaking things.


----------



## SBacklin

Well, my TiVo's were installed a couple days ago and all three are talking to each other and I have two extra MoCA adapters with stuff connected and all is well. I checked the MoCA rates and my Pro is reporting all of them around 250 to 280, give or take except for the Pro itself, its around 180ish. I'm assuming that's because there is an extra splitter in place between it and the main splitter where as the others don't have that extra splitter in the line. Everything is working great with my splitters being 5-1000. Thanks for the input everyone.


----------



## nooneuknow

SBacklin said:


> Well, my TiVo's were installed a couple days ago and all three are talking to each other and I have two extra MoCA adapters with stuff connected and all is well. I checked the MoCA rates and my Pro is reporting all of them around 250 to 280, give or take except for the Pro itself, its around 180ish. I'm assuming that's because there is an extra splitter in place between it and the main splitter where as the others don't have that extra splitter in the line. Everything is working great with my splitters being 5-1000. Thanks for the input everyone.


You are very welcome.

I'm sure many would like to know what splitters you are using (with all the specifics you can provide). You created this thread. So, it seems incomplete without that. All we know is that you are using some unknown brand of "5-1000" (1GHz splitters).

Knowing all that, and knowing what splitters are hooked up where, and where you have your PoE filter(s) placed, could expose any easy fix for the inconsistent speed you describe. What options you chose when you set up the TiVo would be great to know, as well.

I know it all seems done and tidy. But, you can truly wrap it up with details and specifics. Those might even create an "AHA! moment", that gets you equal readings. Have you checked to make sure that you haven't had any negative effects on your Cable TV, especially if you use a tuning adapter, and/or your cable modem readings? Knowing your cable provider and what brand & model of cablecard, tuning adapter (if applicable), and cable modem could help out a lot, especially for other, in the future.

Hopefully, if you provide the specifics, and this gets nicely wrapped-up. New members with the same question in their head, might find this thread, and not create new ones. If they do, we can refer them to this one, so there's no need to go through all this again.

Please take time to provide the details, when it is convenient for you to do so. That would be the best way of thanking those who helped, and "paying it forward" to others.


----------



## SBacklin

Well the initial two-way splitter outside is a CommScope SV-2G rated 5-1002MHz. The next splitter is actually a CommScope HomeConnect Subscriber Amplifier (CSAPDU5VP), 4-way/Powered, 54-1002MHz FWD, Rev. 5-25MHz, 6KV Comb. Wave Surge Protected. The last splitter is an Extreme Broadband Engineering BDS102H two-way splitter, 5-1000MHz. 

My setup consists of a Roamio Pro that is creating the MoCA network and his plugged into my Time Capsule via Ethernet. My next is a Roamio Plus in the bedroom joining the MoCA network and my last TiVo is a TiVo Mini that is utilizing a tuner off of the Pro. I also have two MoCA adapters connected in different rooms that are powering two wireless APs (Airport Expresses).

No tuning adapter, I didn't think to check the brand of the CableCARDs. I have the POE at the outside before the drop connects to the first splitter. My PHY readings are mid 200s except for the Pro the TX PHY rate is at 183. I'm guessing its because the Pro is after the last "Extreme" branded splitter. However, I haven't had any issues regarding picture or drop outs.


----------



## tarheelblue32

So I already asked this question in a separate thread, but since this thread is about splitters, I will ask it here too. Is it generally okay to just attach the grounding wire to the grounding screw found on most splitters, or is it better to use a dedicated grounding block?


----------



## nooneuknow

tarheelblue32 said:


> So I already asked this question in a separate thread, but since this thread is about splitters, I will ask it here too. Is it generally okay to just attach the grounding wire to the grounding screw found on most splitters, or is it better to use a dedicated grounding block?


The ground wire just needs to be connected to the first place at point of entry, where there is a screw for doing so. If you don't have a grounding block (which is more common than having one these days), the first splitter becomes the grounding block (just as adequate). Everything from there-forward relies on the coax shield to maintain a continuous and contiguous ground path.


----------



## nooneuknow

SBacklin said:


> Well the initial two-way splitter outside is a CommScope SV-2G rated 5-1002MHz. The next splitter is actually a CommScope HomeConnect Subscriber Amplifier (CSAPDU5VP), 4-way/Powered, 54-1002MHz FWD, Rev. 5-25MHz, 6KV Comb. Wave Surge Protected. The last splitter is an Extreme Broadband Engineering BDS102H two-way splitter, 5-1000MHz.
> 
> My setup consists of a Roamio Pro that is creating the MoCA network and his plugged into my Time Capsule via Ethernet. My next is a Roamio Plus in the bedroom joining the MoCA network and my last TiVo is a TiVo Mini that is utilizing a tuner off of the Pro. I also have two MoCA adapters connected in different rooms that are powering two wireless APs (Airport Expresses).
> 
> No tuning adapter, I didn't think to check the brand of the CableCARDs. I have the POE at the outside before the drop connects to the first splitter. My PHY readings are mid 200s except for the Pro the TX PHY rate is at 183. I'm guessing its because the Pro is after the last "Extreme" branded splitter. However, I haven't had any issues regarding picture or drop outs.


Amps should be avoided when using MoCA, unless installed upstream of any MoCA carrying ports/connections (unless you have a special amp with "pass-through" ports, which aren't amplified, which still don't always work well with MoCA).

Amps can create far worse problems than all the things I've spoke of in this thread, combined. My signature says what it says, due to the OUT port of Cisco TAs being amplified, and unable to let MoCA through (or only letting very little though). Amps do not share the same MoCA-passing qualities as splitters (unless engineered to do so, which will be specified).

I'd move the PoE filter to the OUT side of the AMP, and make sure you are not letting MoCA in, out, or through the amp via any path. If you have more than one amplified port, you might need more PoE filters to keep the amp and MoCA from causing issues with each other (unless it has built-in MoCA filtering, which would be specified, if it did).

One of the worst "bad advice" offenses I've seen on TCF, is advice saying to get higher-rated amps to fix this. It will only make it worse. You don't want your MoCA amplified by anything other than the mechanisms in the MoCA adapters, or MoCA inclusive devices, like the Roamio Plus/Pro.

In one case, I helped out somebody who had an amp with a single OUT port, and all it took was putting it upstream of all MoCA, with the filter on the amplified OUT port, rather than on in IN port. For extreme assurance no MoCA signals find their way into an amp, there would be a filter on IN & OUT ports, keeping your MoCA out of the amp, and keeping a neighbor's MoCA from getting into it from the IN port.


----------



## jmbach

I thought this was a pretty good write up by Cisco for MoCa installation and troubleshooting.


----------



## nooneuknow

jmbach said:


> I thought this was a pretty good write up by Cisco for MoCa installation and troubleshooting.


That is pretty good. I'm not sure everybody can follow it. But it's a great reference I'll bookmark for later use, for sure. :up:

Sometimes the lack of actual diagrams, especially laying out the customer equipment as it currently is, makes for the hardest advising. At least I can ask: Is it hooked up like fig x.x, or x.y, in this guide?


----------



## jmbach

What I found interesting is that they only call for splitters rated up to 860Ghz.

There is also a link from the MoCa Alliance site with some good information. Some of it appears a little dated but not much has changed with the basics of MoCa for awhile.


----------



## nooneuknow

jmbach said:


> What I found interesting is that they only call for splitters rated up to 860Ghz.
> 
> There is also a link from the MoCa Alliance site with some good information. Some of it appears a little dated but not much has changed with the basics of MoCa for awhile.


I have a hard enough time convincing people 1GHz is enough...

What has changed, is the splitter companies cashing in on bogus "MoCA-enabled" & "MoCA-enhanced" splitters. I've ranted about that enough, though.

Make it sound better, and they will come (and buy it)... If it wasn't for all the misinformation out there, and people repeating it, MoCA probably works perfectly on 98% of all the 860/1000MHz splitters, made before MoCA was released to the public, and splitter sales/profits would be down.


----------



## SBacklin

nooneuknow said:


> Amps should be avoided when using MoCA, unless installed upstream of any MoCA carrying ports/connections (unless you have a special amp with "pass-through" ports, which aren't amplified, which still don't always work well with MoCA).
> 
> Amps can create far worse problems than all the things I've spoke of in this thread, combined. My signature says what it says, due to the OUT port of Cisco TAs being amplified, and unable to let MoCA through (or only letting very little though). Amps do not share the same MoCA-passing qualities as splitters (unless engineered to do so, which will be specified).
> 
> I'd move the PoE filter to the OUT side of the AMP, and make sure you are not letting MoCA in, out, or through the amp via any path. If you have more than one amplified port, you might need more PoE filters to keep the amp and MoCA from causing issues with each other (unless it has built-in MoCA filtering, which would be specified, if it did).
> 
> One of the worst "bad advice" offenses I've seen on TCF, is advice saying to get higher-rated amps to fix this. It will only make it worse. You don't want your MoCA amplified by anything other than the mechanisms in the MoCA adapters, or MoCA inclusive devices, like the Roamio Plus/Pro.
> 
> In one case, I helped out somebody who had an amp with a single OUT port, and all it took was putting it upstream of all MoCA, with the filter on the amplified OUT port, rather than on in IN port. For extreme assurance no MoCA signals find their way into an amp, there would be a filter on IN & OUT ports, keeping your MoCA out of the amp, and keeping a neighbor's MoCA from getting into it from the IN port.


Well, the POE is at the outside. It is sitting between the first splitter that is outside and the cable that comes from the pole. That is where people are told to have it since its before any wiring that goes into the home. The AMP is inside the home.

The layout is like this. Cable drop to first two way splitter (outside). One cable goes from there to a computer room and the other goes to where the amp now sits (inside). From that amp, my room, two other bedrooms and the living room are fed. In the living room however is another two way splitter where one feeds the EMTA and the other the Roamio Pro.

I was aware of the issue with certain amps. It is mentioned however that if an amp has to be used to make sure its bi-directional as to not mess with the MoCA and this one that was installed seems to fit the bill. I discussed this in length with the installer. He assured me it would work and it has. He had a similar setup with another customer and it worked without any issues. I haven't had any issues with my network at all in terms of MoCA performance. I was pleasantly surprised.

I hope I'm not misunderstanding you. :-/


----------



## nooneuknow

SBacklin said:


> Well, the POE is at the outside. It is sitting between the first splitter that is outside and the cable that comes from the pole. That is where people are told to have it since its before any wiring that goes into the home. The AMP is inside the home.
> 
> The layout is like this. Cable drop to first two way splitter (outside). One cable goes from there to a computer room and the other goes to where the amp now sits (inside). From that amp, my room, two other bedrooms and the living room are fed. In the living room however is another two way splitter where one feeds the EMTA and the other the Roamio Pro.
> 
> I was aware of the issue with certain amps. It is mentioned however that if an amp has to be used to make sure its bi-directional as to not mess with the MoCA and this one that was installed seems to fit the bill. I discussed this in length with the installer. He assured me it would work and it has. He had a similar setup with another customer and it worked without any issues. I haven't had any issues with my network at all in terms of MoCA performance. I was pleasantly surprised.
> 
> I hope I'm not misunderstanding you. :-/


I was just trying to see if I could come up with a change that might bring a fully balanced PHY rate to everything. I like perfection, when I can achieve it, or help somebody else achieve it. I'm not saying there's anything definitively "wrong" about what you have, how it's set-up, or that it's not "good enough". Good enough is up to you to decide on the criteria.

The amp was never mentioned until now. I wish you had brought it up, so I could have researched it, recommended a plan for the best place to put it, and where to go from there. Amps are usually placed as close to the PoE (the place, not the filter) as possible. Placing them at the far end of a run isn't ideal, even when not using MoCA. Why let a weak signal degrade over any longer run than is beyond your control, right? Amplifying near PoE makes the most sense in as many as 90% of all cases where an amp is needed. I wrongly assumed that was where the amp was, until now. I've helped others who had amps installed by cableco "professionals", who didn't use the right amp, or used the right one, but placed, or hooked it up wrong.

MoCA PoE filters may be called PoE (Point Of Entry), but that's just one place they can be used/placed, and you can use multiple ones in different places. They aren't directional, and will filter from either direction they are facing, by bouncing the MoCA signals back. Some could have them in all these places (many have at least two installed):

1. Point of Entry (aka: demarcation point).
2. Cable Modem/EMTA (if it doesn't have one built in).
3. One per tuning adapter (usually only Cisco ones, with an IN & OUT port).
4. Anyplace the MoCA doesn't have any reason to have to travel past.
5. Any device that starts acting up when MoCA is added, that didn't before.

Since the only device that stops a MoCA signal from passing, by reflecting it back, is a PoE filter, you can improve MoCA performance/reliability by using them to limit where it goes (by creating a MoCA "segment").

I would almost bet money on if you added a PoE filter to the splitter leg for the EMTA, your PHY would balance out, and it might improve whatever readings/performance/error counts your EMTA has. Since MoCA is going through the IN-OUT of that extra splitter, with one leg to the Roamio, it shouldn't drop the MoCA PHY rate that much (should be negligible). It would seem your EMTA might not have a built in MoCA filter, and might benefit from having one, plus bring up the PHY rate of the Roamio.

If you just want to leave things as is, and come back if you start noticing problems, that's fine by me. I'd suggest you try to recall what all your non-MoCA signals were like, especially at the EMTA, before you added MoCA to the coax.

A safe and quick way to see if a PoE at the EMTA brings balance is to just move the one you have. If it brings up the MoCA PHY rate and/or creates any improvement at the EMTA, I suggest leaving it there, and ordering another one for the actual Point of Entry. If it's hard for you to access it to move it, I really feel buying an extra PoE filter for the EMTA will help (perhaps everything is "working", but the EMTA is close to flaking-out, and could in the future, if the signal conditions change a tiny bit).


----------



## SBacklin

I'd be willing to grab another filter and put it between the EMTA and last splitter and see if it helps bring back the PHY rates for the Pro. Once I get it and install it, I'll let you know. Thanks for the suggestion =)


----------



## nooneuknow

SBacklin said:


> I'd be willing to grab another filter and put it between the EMTA and last splitter and see if it helps bring back the PHY rates for the Pro. Once I get it and install it, I'll let you know. Thanks for the suggestion =)


No problem, at all. You're welcome. 

If the filter there doesn't do the trick, I'd wonder about that 2-way splitter. There are duds and borderline ones in every batch. In hindsight, I could have started with the splitter. But, I already have someplace else in mind for the filter, if it doesn't help on the EMTA leg.

If you so desire, I'll be happy to work with you until the PHY rate is balanced. There's no reason (short something wrong with the MoCA in the Roamio), that should prevent getting a near-perfect balance, especially once you have the extra filter to work with. Do you have any other splitters handy? If not, I guess I should have suggested getting another one to try as well. One should always have at least a few extra splitters around...

Which option did you choose for setting up the MoCA on the TiVo? I believe it's not possible with your configuration, for a conflict. But, only one device should be "creating the network" (The TiVo, in your case, I believe), and all others should be "connected to the network" (client-only mode, or bridge-mode for access points).

I'll dig into the specifics on your amp and your splitters. I think I can find it with what you posted. I'll look for anything that creates any "aha!" moments. 

I also suggest reviewing the documents jmbach generously contributed. There's good info there, and if your review raises any questions, you can tell me what illustrations to look at, that best fit your scenario.

I'm only pursuing making things better, because you are just over the minimum values that are considered ideal (on the Roamio).


----------



## poppagene

nooneuknow said:


> Amps should be avoided when using MoCA, unless installed upstream of any MoCA carrying ports/connections (unless you have a special amp with "pass-through" ports, which aren't amplified, which still don't always work well with MoCA).


What's wrong with a distribution amp with a forward frequency range of 54 to 1002 MHz (like the ones made by channel master) used in conjunction with a MoCA frequency of 1150 Mhz?


----------



## tarheelblue32

poppagene said:


> What's wrong with a distribution amp with a forward frequency range of 54 to 1002 MHz (like the ones made by channel master) used in conjunction with a MoCA frequency of 1150 Mhz?


I actually use a powered amp on my network because we still have 1 TV hooked up to TWC's analog cable, and the channels are fuzzy without boosting the signal. It also boosts the return signal to help TWC's crappy tuning adapter out. I haven't had any problems with it interfering with my MoCA network, but YMMV.


----------



## nooneuknow

poppagene said:


> What's wrong with a distribution amp with a forward frequency range of 54 to 1002 MHz (like the ones made by channel master) used in conjunction with a MoCA frequency of 1150 Mhz?


Amps don't deal with MoCA like splitters do.

I've detailed it so many times in so many threads, I'm worn-out. I never say amps can't be used. I simply say if you are using an amp, it should be upstream of where MoCA needs to pass through, unless it's an amp that is designed to properly handle MoCA.

MoCA was designed to work with even 860MHz splitters. It was designed to let you keep your splitters. It works by powering-past port-isolation. While some have been able to get MoCA to work going from OUT to OUT ports on an amp, it's not always going to work. It's definitely not going to work if you try to use an amp in a way where you are trying to push MoCA between IN-OUT or OUT-IN, unless it's an amp designed to let MoCA pass through without amplifying the MoCA.

Besides, amps do their best as far upstream as you can place them, anyway. Placing an amp behind your TV, with 2 feet of coax between the amp and TV is not the same as placing it 2 feet from point of entry, with 100 feet between it and that same TV. The latter is the better approach anyway, and will let you keep the amp you have, and use MoCA.


----------



## namwoljr

tarheelblue32 said:


> I actually use a powered amp on my network because we still have 1 TV hooked up to TWC's analog cable, and the channels are fuzzy without boosting the signal. It also boosts the return signal to help TWC's crappy tuning adapter out. I haven't had any problems with it interfering with my MoCA network, but YMMV.


Interesting that you say an amp helped the tuning adapter out. I actually hooked up a Winegard HDA-100 distribution amp I had lying around yesterday (had used it for OTA distribution to multiple TVs) to see if it would make any difference whatsoever in my Tuning Adapter woes. I checked the before and after numbers for S/N ratio and signal strength for a few SDV and non-SDV channels, and it actually made it worse. I've just about given up on my Tuning Adapter working properly and have accepted that I will be using HBO Go on my Apple TV to watch my shows.


----------



## jmbach

Maybe a different amp? I have an Extreme Broadband amp with unity gain that improved my signal and S/N ratios.


----------



## tarheelblue32

namwoljr said:


> Interesting that you say an amp helped the tuning adapter out. I actually hooked up a Winegard HDA-100 distribution amp I had lying around yesterday (had used it for OTA distribution to multiple TVs) to see if it would make any difference whatsoever in my Tuning Adapter woes. I checked the before and after numbers for S/N ratio and signal strength for a few SDV and non-SDV channels, and it actually made it worse. I've just about given up on my Tuning Adapter working properly and have accepted that I will be using HBO Go on my Apple TV to watch my shows.


Is it an amp specifically designed to boost the low-frequency return signal used by the cable companies with SDV and on-demand?

This is the amp I am using:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005P12QME/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## namwoljr

tarheelblue32 said:


> Is it an amp specifically designed to boost the low-frequency return signal used by the cable companies with SDV and on-demand?
> 
> This is the amp I am using:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005P12QME/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1


That makes sense, now that I look at the specs for my amplifier: http://www.winegard.com/kbase/upload/WC-819.pdf

It looks like the Winegard HDA-100 has a -2dB return gain for the 5-42Hz return path, but the HDA-200 has a +12 gain for the 5-42Hz return path. Would this account for the HDA-100 actually harming the signal strength of the tuning adapter? If so, I might upgrade the HDA-200 and see if that fixes my problems.

By the way, I opted for the Winegard over the PCT amplifier because I wanted to be able to change the splitter setup after the amp instead of being locked into a 2, 4, or 8 way output amp.


----------



## namwoljr

Actually, now that I think about it, if my cable modem is working just fine, and its return path numbers look good (will check in the cable modem diagnostics screen when I get home), shouldn't that mean my TA should have no problems as well?


----------



## jmbach

The signal depends on the type of cable, cable length, how well the cable ends are secured. I have improved S/N ratios by replacing the ends of the cable with high quality ends. The signal quality with my amp. In my house the main cable comes in and gets split. One to the cable modem and the other to the amp. From the amp to the TiVo and TA. 

When you look at the modem diagnostic screen, pull up the TA screen on the TiVo and see if you can find similar numbers. It's been a while since I have looked at the TA screen so I am not exactly sure of all the information available but I do seem to recall some signal information.


----------



## nooneuknow

Due to the many differences between splitters and amps, and an exponential amount of variables amp add to things (depending on the amp itself, plus where it is placed in the coax runs), I wonder if there should be a "MoCA Networking/*Amp* Type" thread...

Much of what is in this thread is specific to splitters, and doesn't apply to amps.

I foresee a great amount of confusion if this thread starts covering both.

I'd have contributed more on amps, and used the same level of detail, when they came up, if I wasn't so certain everything I've said about splitters could seem contradictory to what I post about amps.

Most of this thread is about how MoCA is designed to work with old 860MHz splitters, and was designed to let you keep what you have (as much as possible). Amps are a whole different story and context.

Do we carry on to include amps, forcing added context to differentiate why a multitude of things apply to one, but not the other, only to still confuse those who skip to the last page and possibly those who read all of it, or do we keep this thread "pure"?


----------



## poppagene

nooneuknow said:


> Due to the many differences between splitters and amps, and an exponential amount of variables amp add to things (depending on the amp itself, plus where it is placed in the coax runs), I wonder if there should be a "MoCA Networking/*Amp* Type" thread...
> 
> Much of what is in this thread is specific to splitters, and doesn't apply to amps.
> 
> I foresee a great amount of confusion if this thread starts covering both.
> 
> I'd have contributed more on amps, and used the same level of detail, when they came up, if I wasn't so certain everything I've said about splitters could seem contradictory to what I post about amps.
> 
> Most of this thread is about how MoCA is designed to work with old 860MHz splitters, and was designed to let you keep what you have (as much as possible). Amps are a whole different story and context.
> 
> Do we carry on to include amps, forcing added context to differentiate why a multitude of things apply to one, but not the other, only to still confuse those who skip to the last page and possibly those who read all of it, or do we keep this thread "pure"?


For that matter, what about diplexers? A good diplexer is a better option to combine an OTA or cable signal with your MoCA AFAIK


----------



## nooneuknow

poppagene said:


> For that matter, what about diplexers? A good diplexer is a better option to combine an OTA or cable signal with your MoCA AFAIK


I really don't want to go there. Diplexers are not splitters, they are different signal combiners/separators. They are meant for combining two different type signal sources, each with their own coax, allowing one coax cable, then the signals are separated again to two cables.

If you are saying that AFAYK they work better for MoCA, it's the first I've heard of it, and I've been subbed to every MoCA thread (that I'm aware of) for a long time now. But, since diplexers are most often used for satellite and OTA over one cable (for a length, not the whole end-to-end), I'd recommend not using them, unless there's a need for them (as they were intended for). I would not say they work "better" for MoCA.

I'd put this under the "some mistakenly think it's better, because they mistakenly think the splitter frequency rating needs to be inclusive of the MoCA frequencies" category. That's a gross over-simplification, as I don't want to now have to juggle what applies to splitters, amps, and diplexers, which are all "different story, different context", when MoCA is part of the picture.

It's mayhem, just waiting to happen. It'll turn into "but you said....", and then I have to explain "I said that about splitters, not...", and will likely get so technical that very few understand what I'm saying, and I'll only confuse those that don't.

I was kind of hoping this thread would be a great linking thread for new members, with the same questions the OP and other first few posters had.

I'm happy to chime-in on all (individually), when they are separated by different threads, and it isn't talking apples, oranges, and bowling balls, leading to comparisons, and so much different context, all in one thread, which has been very specific to splitters, until amps came up.


----------



## namwoljr

You're probably referring to me dragging the thread slightly off topic by talking about active return amps and Tuning Adapters. I have a Roamio Basic, so I don't even have MoCA capability, much less a need for it. I've given up on SDV working properly with my Tivo, so I won't bring it up anymore. HBO Go to the rescue! (It's no wonder why people hate cable companies so much)


----------



## nooneuknow

namwoljr said:


> You're probably referring to me dragging the thread slightly off topic by talking about active return amps and Tuning Adapters. I have a Roamio Basic, so I don't even have MoCA capability, much less a need for it. I've given up on SDV working properly with my Tivo, so I won't bring it up anymore. HBO Go to the rescue! (It's no wonder why people hate cable companies so much)


Nah, the time was inevitably going to come. The resulting conversation had some useful info in it. I have been thinking out-loud, about what a mess it will be trying to contextualize advice, without seeming contradictory, for every product that can somehow be connected to coax cable. Stay if you want. Ask if you want. Post if you want to. I have no control over the thread, no matter how many posts of mine are here. The OP who created this thread has no control over it.

Perhaps if I stayed out of trying to help people avoid problems, and just replied to posts after people bought what they bought, and/or used what they used, and then have problems, that would be a less stressful for me. Real, existing problems, get less debate over suggestions for fixing them, than potential (or even guaranteed to happen) ones do.

In any reality, I'm doing what should be TiVo's job(s) for them. It used to be fun. But, it's just too much, since I'm the "Jack of All Trades and master of more than one". If I do something, I try to do it right, including advice, and trying to factor in all the variables...

I've been booed-out-of other threads for getting technical on things. It doesn't feel good to be "that guy", so I don't want to make you feel unwelcome.

I'm also guilty of being the one who threw a flag on your play, when it was somebody else who mentioned an amp, first. It was brought up before you. I was the one who made it seem like a good place to start talking about amps. Maybe it is.

I'm still open to suggestions on this. It's not as if there's a shortage of existing threads on MoCA, which drift all over the place, with often nothing to do with the thread title being the most recent discussion, or even the ten before it...


----------



## telemark

Interesting stuff.

Some new house builds have 2 parallel coax distribution runs, one for cable and one for satellite. I wonder if they used different distribution hardware for each.

For Amps, it gets complicated quickly. It would be nice to be separated into another thread to at least be clear that they should not be added without some planning and can make many problems worse. Then try to maintain a list of Cable oriented models that have designs to work with everything. ( cable modem, SDV, MoCA, I'm probably forgetting one here )

Whoever brought up Monster, they do make splitters, for better or worse.


----------



## lessd

The biggest problem for MoCA use is older homes where the cable co put splitters on the outside of the home for room distribution of cable, and may have added an amp somewhere for other rooms, I set up a friend for MoCA and we had an electrician move the main cable into the home, put a new two way cable amp than from the amp ran the cables back outside, the system works great with 5 Minis one Roamio Plus.


----------



## nooneuknow

telemark said:


> Interesting stuff.
> 
> Some new house builds have 2 parallel coax distribution runs, one for cable and one for satellite. I wonder if they used different distribution hardware for each.
> 
> For Amps, it gets complicated quickly. It would be nice to be separated into another thread to at least be clear that they should not be added without some planning and can make many problems worse. Then try to maintain a list of Cable oriented models that have designs to work with everything. ( cable modem, SDV, MoCA, I'm probably forgetting one here )
> 
> Whoever brought up Monster, they do make splitters, for better or worse.


Yeah. In order to fully be sure it is easy to switch between the two, and especially to use both, dual-coax with dual distribution is the best way to go, when it's such an opportune time to run the coax. I'd only wonder if the new homes have all the splitters, and other distribution hardware, for both, or if just one run gets the hardware, being the one the new home buyer chooses (perhaps both, at added cost, if both at the same time are ordered).

Satellite used to use two RG6 coax cables, just to do satellite, and required diplexers just to carry the local OTA. I still see many homes with the dual-coax ribbon. But, there's also many homes with outdated dishes, just left in-place, after switching to cable.

As far as what you might have missed, EMTAs for IP/internet telephone is all I can think of, at the moment. Oh yes, home security/automation devices that might use the coax.

As an ending notation, at least it seems the MoCA splitter type question has been answered to death. Hopefully, I can find a few choice posts, and just link to them from other threads where the subject comes up.


----------



## nooneuknow

lessd said:


> The biggest problem for MoCA use is older homes where the cable co put splitters on the outside of the home for room distribution of cable, and may have added an amp somewhere for other rooms, I set up a friend for MoCA and we had an electrician move the main cable into the home, put a new two way cable amp than from the amp ran the cables back outside, the system works great with 5 Minis one Roamio Plus.


I agree. I once found an amp inside a wall (between drywall), and it was OLD-school analog. I was trying to make digital cable work. That hidden amp would have rendered the whole house MoCA-incapable, had it been digital, but left undiscovered. It had been inside the wall long enough to have rust on the chrome.

Thank the tech gods, that I had a tone generator/signal tracer combo to follow the coax with. It's things like this why Cox "professional installs" are the most visible (and often hideous-looking) runs, never inside anything, unless it's a through-and-though to get from inside-out/outside-in. They want to eliminate hidden surprises/problems, with the tradeoff of being ugly. They no longer will work with any built-in coax. They'll just string a whole new run. I can't say I blame them. But, it has led to Home Owner Association fines and lawsuits, due to the HOA laws saying everything has to be hidden (and satellite dishes painted the same color shade as every house and mailbox, etc).


----------



## poppagene

nooneuknow said:


> I really don't want to go there. Diplexers are not splitters, they are different signal combiners/separators. They are meant for combining two different type signal sources, each with their own coax, allowing one coax cable, then the signals are separated again to two cables.
> 
> If you are saying that AFAYK they work better for MoCA, it's the first I've heard of it, and I've been subbed to every MoCA thread (that I'm aware of) for a long time now. But, since diplexers are most often used for satellite and OTA over one cable (for a length, not the whole end-to-end), I'd recommend not using them, unless there's a need for them (as they were intended for). I would not say they work "better" for MoCA.


The reason that good diplexers are cited as being better for moca than a two way splitter is that it is claimed that they avoid the signal loss associated with splitting.


----------



## telemark

poppagene said:


> The reason that good diplexers are cited as being better for moca than a two way splitter is that it is claimed that they avoid the signal loss associated with splitting.


I get what you're describing now. It would require a different wiring diagram though.. Not all households could be adapted, which was one of the beauties of MoCA and HomePNA.

If true, it might have its' use cases but I'm not sure the general case is one.


----------



## poppagene

telemark said:


> I get what you're describing now. It would require a different wiring diagram though.. Not all households could be adapted, which was one of the beauties of MoCA and HomePNA.
> 
> If true, it might have its' use cases but I'm not sure the general case is one.


I have OTA so for me, MOCA is mostly about how the ethernet coax from my router joins with the coax for my antenna and then how it breaks off to a coax for tivo and coax for the Moca adapter that feeds ethernet to tivo. Otherwise the coax runs to and from tivo are wired the same as in anyone's house. Also, a diplexer where the mini is sends the moca leg to the mini and the OTA to the television.


----------



## telemark

I was thinking about Cable and had not considered OTA when I said that. I stand corrected.

Satellite also would be very different.


----------



## nooneuknow

I'll admit that I don't know enough (quite a bit, just not enough), to say yay or nay on the properties of diplexers, when used in conjunction with MoCA. Since they can be used for a combination of cable/OTA/satellite, and differing ones exist, some made very use-specific, and some more general purpose, it's more complicated. Plus, where they are located will likely make a difference, besides what they are used for.

Until I can read up some more, I'll defer from saying something like I don't recommend them. I'm skeptical, that they are less lossy, unless used in a very specific manner (as designed to be used, and not being used simply instead of a splitter, which seems to be the question at hand). Until I can update my internal knowledgebase on diplexer, where most would use a splitter, I (for now) lean towards saying stick with splitters, unless you are having a problem, that using a diplexer (instead) improves (which the same improvement might be attainable with a good grade splitter). MoCA is limited by it's own limitations, and if working properly, and at/near it's realistic max, there's nothing to be gained by lowering loss, if that loss isn't reducing performance/reliability.

Feel free to lay-down/lay-out any scenarios that you want me to look at, so my scope isn't overly expansive, and I can maybe focus more on specific scenarios, than every possible type and placement possible.

I'm not the type to argue against something, just because I'm not 100% sure of how it works, or just because it's non-standard use of something. So, I'll try to get to where I can add more diplexer info, and make a good-faith effort to be able to give correct answers when they come up.

I welcome any links to where I might find more info to back up this "less loss" claim, and anyplace that is more than one person, or a few people, reporting they work better. But, even some looking into those reports, might lead to an "Aha! I know why this helped this person!" moment.

This might take some time. I can't say it will cause any permanent harm for those who have some diplexers around, to try using them to make before & after comparisons. I simply ask for more in-depth data points than "it works", or "it works better" (IOW, documenting the state of MoCA device diag/info data). I only warn that many diplexers I have seen (I have some here) have a DC-pass through between the dual purpose IN/OUT and satellite leg. Unless there are splitter(s) placed in a way to insure there is no passing DC current, it's best to avoid any voltage/current being able to pass-between non-satellite devices (could be catastrophic). That same DC-pass might cause something similar to a ground-loop, with the signal, or it could create an unsafe condition, should the "perfect storm" of conditions happen, is likely more important than much else.


----------



## telemark

It's not the simplest thing to explain. If someone understands it already, they could design the layout themselves. One analogy would be cross-overs from speaker design.

They're NOT generally interchange-able. Only when a TV/Cable only device is in tandem with a MoCA only device, could a splitter be replaced with a diplexer.

So how many of these pair off typically?
TV: TV
Cable Box: TV
Cable Modem: TV
Base Tivo: TV
Moca Tivo: TV + MoCA
Moca Bridge: Moca
Mini: Moca

Examples when a MoCA only device and TV signal device is being fed from the same coax run:


Code:


Antenna + MoCA bridges 
MoCA Bridge1 <-> router <-> Cable Modem <-> Cable POE  
MoCA Bridge1 <-> Diplexer1
     Antenna <-> Diplexer1 <-> Splitter1 <-> Diplexer2 <-> MoCA Bridge2
                                  |          Diplexer2 <-> Tivo
                                  |
                               Splitter1 <-> Diplexer3 <-> TV
                                             Diplexer3 <-> Tivo Mini
                             

2x base Tivo
Cable POE <-> Splitter1 <-> Cable Modem
              Splitter1 <-> Splitter2 <-> Diplexer1 <-> Tivo1
                             |            Diplexer1 <-> MoCA Bridge1
                             |
                            Splitter2 <-> Diplexer2 <-> Tivo2
                                          Diplexer2 <-> MoCA Bridge2

That shaves off the about 3.5dB loss on the _video_ signal to the Tv/Tivo's for each diplexer in path for 3.5-7.0 dB total savings.

So a general case when they're useful is when the video signal is weak and there's a number of splitters in the path, some of which are for MoCA only devices. This diagram segments the house wiring into Cable half and MoCA half and takes the excess splitters for driving the mini's out of the video path to the Tivo:


Code:


1x MoCA Tivo + 4x Mini's
Cable POE <-> Splitter1 <-> Cable Modem
              Splitter1 <-> Diplexer1 <-> Tivo
                            Diplexer1 <-> Splitter2 <-> Splitter3 <-> Mini1                                                            
                                           |            Splitter3 <-> Mini2
                                           |
                                          Splitter2 <-> Splitter4 <-> Mini3
                                                        Splitter4 <-> Mini4

A traditional tree could have left the Tivo with 2 to 4 signal drops of the video signal. 
Moving it up tree and replacing one with a diplexer brings it down to 1 splitter signal drop.

The trouble with this is it can complicate things. For example:
A) Antenna vs Cable have different freq ranges
Different Cable systems have different top frequency

B) Different diplexers models have different cut frequency

Now A & B have to match up somewhat. What's going to happen when the diplexer does not match the Cable system range?

Link to diplexer models: http://www.soontai.com/MoCA-dpx.htm


----------



## poppagene

nooneuknow said:


> MoCA is limited by it's own limitations, and if working properly, and at/near it's realistic max, there's nothing to be gained by lowering loss, if that loss isn't reducing performance/reliability.


For clarification, I don't use diplexers to improve the MoCA performance. MoCA is fine for me. My concern is with the OTA signals and that with all the splitting and combining I do to feed and distribute the OTA signals and MoCA, my weaker television stations are affected. My stronger stations are close enough that amplification may cause other issues.


----------



## nooneuknow

poppagene said:


> For clarification, I don't use diplexers to improve the MoCA performance. MoCA is fine for me. My concern is with the OTA signals and that with all the splitting and combining I do to feed and distribute the OTA signals and MoCA, my weaker television stations are affected. My stronger stations are close enough that amplification may cause other issues.


Well, telemark seems to have a pretty good grasp on things (as usual)...

There have been scenarios I've had to run dual coax home-runs (for the same signals, no diplexing involved), because splitters were sapping away too much, and certain channels were suffering. I don't know if that works for you. But, it would seem a logical alternative to combining and separating (this is what I hate about diplexer talk, that it's so easy to say "splitting", when you are really re-"separating" two kinds of signals, which were combined).

Another option is ethernet, rather than MoCA. But, it doesn't seem like MoCA is really a part of your problem. I'm just bringing it up to be thorough.

I really have nothing to add. I could ask you to map & spec out your situation, then try to pinpoint what could be changed about it. But, that would likely confuse things for those who come here looking for splitter advice, and skip to the end. I think it would be beneficial all-around, to make a thread for diplexer scenarios. It's not like you'd be making a new thread on something that 42 threads already exist for. If it's causing you problems, it's worth a thread, IMO.

I'm hoping that we can wrap this thread up, since the thread topic has been covered, and people seem to be using it when they choose what to buy. Ultimately, I think having amps in another thread has merit, like telemark spoke of before, where types and model of amps can be addressed. I definitely would like to move off diplexers (just in this thread), so people don't get confused, or the wrong ideas (like they are interchangeable with splitters).


----------



## nooneuknow

SBacklin said:


> I'd be willing to grab another filter and put it between the EMTA and last splitter and see if it helps bring back the PHY rates for the Pro. Once I get it and install it, I'll let you know. Thanks for the suggestion =)


How about an update on this? It's usually safe to assume that if you don't report back, all is well/resolved. You said you'd be back, so I'm asking. OCD minds need to know!


----------



## Random User 7

Just thought I would add to this discussion. I just setup my Roamio basic and Mini with an antenna attached to the Roamio. My RG6 runs are used for MoCa with two MI424WRs, one in the wire closet attached to the router and one next to the Roamio. Roamio is Ethernet connected to that one.

I tried a few splitters that I had and they would work for about 30 minutes before dropping out. So for the heck of it I tried a Dish separator since it had higher frequency range and the TiVo website states at least 1.2 Ghz. Ever since I made the switch it has been working great. Only four hours so far so we will see tomorrow.

The attachment shows the two that did not work for me and the one connected that did work.










The second attachment I posted elsewhere but thought I might get feedback here quicker. Any ideas what the idea range is for TX Power/RX Power?










Thanks


----------



## Random User 7

I know that is not a splitter, that is why I did not call it that and also why I posted the pic. I was surprised it worked at all. I read this entire thread twice (even the PDF from the links) and understand fully what should have worked. Again that is why I posted the pictures because I was surprised. 

I understand for some reason it twinges your nerve but it worked and is still working this morning. My house is about five years old, the RG6 is a straight run to each room. There are no splitters or amps in use. Nothing else but MoCa is traversing the wire. The OTA signal goes straight into the Tivo. The cable from Internet has its own run as well from the box to my modem. 

I plan to get a new splitter with a higher frequency range because in the end I know this is not the right equipment for the job. My goal was to first try what I had on hand before buying new. The black labeled splitter is about 3 years old the other is ages old.


----------



## elborak

nooneuknow said:


> Your post kind of throws all the refined knowledge on basics and normal installs on it's head, coming across as "Hey guys, if all the stuff posted here doesn't work, try this". It kind of ruined keeping things to the basics, and goes against the grain of things (avoiding >1.2GHz splitters, and being able to use 1GH, or even 860MHz ones, for most common installs).


You may not understand why he's seeing the results he is, but to imply that he shouldn't post his findings here is very strange.

This isn't a newbie thread, it isn't named to imply that it's a newbie or "start here" thread, and you are not the OP. The more info the better, even if it is sometimes inconsistent or confusing. Ultimately, that's how progress is made and insight gained.


----------



## elborak

If you really want a "MoCA primer" or "The final word on splitters" thread, why not start one? Despite your claims to the contrary, I doubt many others really viewed this thread as filling that position, especially as the title wouldn't attract the very people such a thread would be targeting.

You have detailed knowledge in several areas and are frequently very helpful. You also seem to feel it is your duty to police every other poster to make sure their posts satisfy your standards, which gets very tired very quickly.


----------



## Random User 7

Well said, I agree and thanks.


----------



## nooneuknow

I'll make sure to remember such sentiments, the next time you need help with something I can help with, or ask a question I can answer. Take the good and the bad, or just add me to your ignore list. I can't separate myself into two personalities, with different communication skills, on the fly, or as a whole. I've been trying to change for over 20 years. The harder I try at doing so, the worse I fail, often making things worse.

Please move on, if you truly want what is best. All suggestions have been taken under advisement. [/end of discussion]


----------



## Bigg

My MoCA works fine with 860mhz splitters. It will blast through about anything, although occasionally you will find a garbage splitter that just causes problems in general, regardless of the claimed frequency support.


----------

