# Roamio Cabling Setup Feedback



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

I am planning for a TiVo Roamio (Plus or Pro) setup (with one Mini) to replace my Charter STB, and I want to run the proper cabling in advance of purchasing the equipment. I have consulted various resources on the web and I think I have a good grasp of the required system connections, but would appreciate another set of eyes as feedback.

Background  Current Conditions: I am currently receiving an HOA-supplied Charter Communications cable (all-digital) signal. The Motorola DCH6200 STB Coax output feeds an existing coax run to the bedroom TV, as shown in the CURRENT SETUP below:


LEGEND OF SYMBOLS FOR SETUPS BELOW

| = Wall; ------ = Coax; ~~~~~~ = HDMI Cable; . . . . . . . . = Cat6 Cable;
I.C.S. = Incoming Charter Signal; RF = STB RF Out; M = Built-in MoCA Out


CURRENT SETUP

I.C.S.--|-------------STB~~~~~~~~~~~HD TV (L.R.)

RF-----|----------------------------|---------- SD TV (B.R.)


Background  Proposed Conditions: Purchase a TiVo Roamio Plus or Pro and a TiVo Mini Client. Obtain a Cable M-Card from Charter. Replace SD TV with an HD TV. I am told that I will need an SDV adapter but I am not showing it in the setup below.


PROPOSED SETUP

. . . . . . . . . . . Router
:
:
I.C.S.--|-------------TiVo~~~~~~~~~~~~~HD TV (L.R.)

M-----|--------------|------TiVo Mini~~~~~HD TV (B.R.)


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I'm not sure what you mean by "built-in MoCA out." There is no RF output of any kind on the TiVo box. You just need a splitter on the "I.C.S." that connects to the Roamio and the run to the Mini.

Unless your router makes a MoCA signal, you will need ethernet from router to Roamio.


----------



## FORDguy97 (Feb 7, 2015)

From looking at your proposed setup, it looks pretty accurate, Cat6 from router to roamio. I think you have "Built-in MoCA out" just for description purposes, but if not you just need 1 coax run to your tivo box, as Arcady describes, the "MoCA out" happens within that one coax, just split at the I.C.S. .

You may know this , you mentioned having to use an SDV adapter, When obtaining your splitters, if charters are like Cox's tuning adapters you will want to split the coax with a two-way with one line going to the TA and other going to tivo, as well as using a Moca filter on back of TA.

Speaking of Moca filters, (according to my research and I do this as well) if you have cable modem as well its good to have a filter on back of cable modem as well, as well as one at cable entry point to prevent moca network leaking out into neighborhood.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear Arcady and FORDguy87,

Thank you both for your helpful feedback. When I posted it, my text-based graphic got altered from the offline-prepared original. I originally had the router Cat6 going to the TiVo (as Arcadys last sentence alludes to), but the post deleted some spaces and made it appear to be connected at the Charter entrance point (illogical, of course). I should have taken the time to do a full-blown drawing and include it as an attachment. I have since done that, additionally incorporating the TA and some of your suggestions (see the attachment).

FORDguy87, In reference to your statement (if you have a cable modem . . . its good to have a filter on back of cable modem as well . . .): My internet is via a wireless antenna on our condo roof, only our TV signal is supplied via the Charter coax input. Given that Im including a POE filter after the splitter (see attachment), are there other locations (e.g. before the splitter), where I should include a POE filter?

Arcady, Im not sure why you state that There is no RF output of any kind on the TiVo box. Perhaps you were thinking of the base Roamio, but I will be buying either the Plus or the Pro, both of which (according to their fact sheets) state that they include a Built-in MoCA bridge for easy installation.

And to clarify your other point (You . . . need a splitter on the I.C.S. that connects to the Roamio and the run to the Mini.). That makes sense, and I failed to show that in my original posting. However, I am not clear as to exactly where this second splitter goes (see attachment for details of three possible locations  shown in RED), namely:

1. Before the TA splitter. It seems to me that this is not the correct location, as this wouldnt provide the TA function to the Mini, nor would it seem to provide Roamio access for the Mini.

2. After the TA splitter in the Roamio coax pigtail. To me this is the logical location, as this parallels the signal that the Roamio sees, for service to the Mini,.

3. After the TA splitter, in the TA coax pigtail. This also seems to the incorrect location, but not understanding the TAs inner workings, I cannot identify a specific reason (and therefore, I could be wrong).

So could you please tell me which of the above three positions is the correct one for this splitter?

And finally, assuming that I add the Arcady-suggested splitter and any other FORDguy-suggested POE filter(s), would the attached setup/diagram (when updated) then be 100% correct? Thanks again for you valuable help and feedback . . .


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Your diagram has no POE filter between your MoCA network and the point of entry.

I would go wall -> poe filter -> splitter ->

1. tuning adapter
2. poe filter -> splitter ->

1. Roamio
2. Mini

This keeps MoCA signals from traveling out of your house as well as to the tuning adapter.


----------



## FORDguy97 (Feb 7, 2015)

Looking good so far, do you have your own cable drop to your condo unit from charter? Sorry some info may be repeated looks like I was typing while he posted

You will want a POE filter at the entry point of your cable service to isolate your moca network from the outside.

The splitter to the mini should be at the main point of entry, so I.C.S. , *POE filter* , 2-way spitter - _this would be splitter "D" in your diagram_ - (one to the mini the other to the roamio). The split to the roamio will then follow your diagram, the split to the mini will connect the mini)

As far as the No output comment - I believe he was saying that there is no physical in and out on the roamio it happens within one coax cable.

If I can clarify anything please continue to ask thanks!


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear Arcady and FORDguy87,

Once again, you guys have both provided informative feedback  Im not used to this kind of assistance from other forum's members. I get the feeling that you must get great satisfaction from just helping others, expecting nothing in return. Enough gushing . . .

So, you both mentioned a POE filter at the entry point, and Ive added that (there are now TWO in the setup).

FORDguy87, to answer your question (do you have your own cable drop to your condo unit . . .?)  I do not know how the HOA cabling system is configured. There are 30 units in our building (10 per level), and a total of 309 units in the whole complex. I assume theres some sort of centrally-located distribution array, but beyond that, I only know that theres a short length of coax sticking out of the wall, and picture shows come out of the end. As for my MoCA output phrase, I guess youre both saying that its not really an output  I suppose thats why TiVo calls it a bridge  Ill lose the output part.

Unless Im misinterpreting what one of you is saying, you two dont seem to agree on the outputs of the first splitter. Arcady says one leg goes to the TA and the other goes through a second POE to the second splitter, which then splits to the Mini and the Roamio. Whereas, FORDguy says that the two outputs of the first splitter go to the Mini and to the Roamio. Is it possible that either method will work, and its just a difference in preferences?

Also, Arcady, you are specifying the second POE to be located after the out port of the first splitter (the one that goes to the second splitter), but I had it in the other output (the one that goes to the TA), per a diagram (link below) I found on the Cox website (maybe either will work or maybe this Cox diagram doesnt apply to TiVo, since its for their cable box?):

http://media.cox.com/support/print_media/tv/equipment/user_guides/cable_box/InstallingYourMotoTA.pdf

Ive made some assumptions and have updated my setup drawing (Rev. 1) to the best of my latest understanding and interpretation. Actually, Ive created TWO versions  one to match my interpretation of Arcadys input (Rev 1A) and another to match my interpretation of FORDguys input (Rev 1B). Both versions are included as attachments (Proposed Roamio Setup (Rev. 1A).pdf and Proposed Roamio Setup (Rev. 1B).pdf  I had to break them up to get by the 100Kb restriction).

Hopefully, Rev. 1 will be the last draft. The reason I need to get this 100% right is that Im running the cabling behind some future hollowed-out trim boards and once the trim is installed, it would be a major pain to make changes. So, can I ask you guys to please take one more look, especially with a view to identify which of my two interpretations is correct (if not both/either)? And also, please comment as to whether I now have the second POE filter in the correct (Arcadys) location or if it should be in the coax into the TA. Hopefully, Im not starting a disagreement between the two of you. Thanks again . .


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

If you use rev 1B, you are placing a MoCA filter in the path between the two TiVo boxes, breaking the MoCA signal.

If you use 1A, it will work. However, looking at it again, you can get rid of the POE filter at the wall, because it is not needed. The POE filter at switch B will keep MoCA from traveling out of the home, and keep it away from the TA.

BTW, I really like your diagrams. Did you use a program to make these?


----------



## FORDguy97 (Feb 7, 2015)

No disagreement from me, both will work with said changes. Which one to choose will be up to you, whatever way is more practical, and easiest for you would be what I would go with. 

I borrowed your illustrations to show suggested changes to both revisions. Thanks im kinda new to tivo myself, glade I could help at least a little


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear Arcady and FORDguy87,

Okay, thanks to you guys, I feel like Im almost to the finish line. Please indulge my continued obsession with accuracy, but I would like to present you with one more revision, to clarify that I truly have it right. So, based on your most recent feedback, attached are the latest updates (essentially reflections of FORDguys markups) for the Rev. 2 drawings (Rev. 2A and Rev. 2B). The changes from 1A and 1B, respectively, are as follows:

Rev. 1A to Rev. 2A: Deleted the first POE filter at the wall (now there is only one POE filter in the system). NO other changes.

Rev. 1B to Rev. 2B: Relocated the second POE filter from after the first splitter (D) to the RF IN port of the TA (which is connected to the TA coax out of the second splitter). NO other changes.

BTW, this Rev. 2B location is where I had this filter in my 2/13 post, but I had moved it back to the other splitter leg, based on Arcadys 2/15 input. In this Rev. 2B location, it now agrees with the Cox diagram that I previously referenced (this still leaves two POE filters in the system). 

So, FORDguy, regarding those two POE filters in your Rev.1B-1.pdf markup, you Xed out the incoming POE in 1A-1.pdf, but not in 1B-1.pdf. I assume you left it there for a reason, but I dont want to make an erroneous assumption. Is this a good assumption or should it be deleted?

Arcady, regarding your software question: Yes, I am using AutoCAD LT 2010 to make these diagrams. Over time, I have created a library of various ports and cables (e.g. USB male and female, CAT6 plugs and ports, etc.). When I cant find an actual drawing of what I want on-line, I grab a screen-shot image from a Google search (I use Fastone Capture  a very user-friendly and versatile little public domain program). This is how I made the back panel drawing of the Roamio  I located a very high-res image on-line, pasted it into AutoCAD, then I scaled it to actual dimensions and start dropping the relevant blocks (ports, etc.) from my library of images onto it, until it looked very close to the original image (I then delete the background image and Im left with a 2D drawing). Sometimes I get out the digital calipers and draw something from scratch (obviously that requires a physical object). If you have access to AutoCAD (or another CAD program that will accept .dwg files) and are interested, I can send you a .dwg version of the .pdf.

p.s. To reduce the filesize below 100Kb, I combined the drawings and chopped off the right side, so that I only need one attachment. None of the missing parts have changed from Rev. 1 to Rev. 2.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

I don't see anything wrong with the newest version. Either one will work.


----------



## FORDguy97 (Feb 7, 2015)

I agree again, both will work.

The reason for the POE filter in question is to block the moca network from exiting your condo. The reason the Arcady's way does not need one there is that the moca network is being created behind of the 1 POE filter, thus blocking moca network from the TA and the outside.

Auto CAD, cool, I know it was something as when I opened your .pdf with Coral Draw, I was easily able to adjust your illustrations to get to the ones I posted. 

If you have any more questions please ask


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear Arcady and FORDguy87,

Thanks to you two, Im ready to start running my cables behind the trim boards. Ive decided to go with Rev. 2B, because it only requires one coax cable between the I.C.S. point-of-entry and the TiVo box, which is located about 12 feet away (the splitter for the run to the mini can go right next to the I.C.S. point-of-entry); whereas the Rev 2A setup requires two coax cables, since the mini run splits off at the TiVo box.

Up until recently, my understanding of the Tuning Adapter function was iffy at best. I understood basically what it does, but not how it does it.

My current understanding of the how of the TA is based on what Ive been able to glean from the web. That is, the TA provides upstream communication (a requirement when TiVo is requesting an inactive SDV channel) with the cable providers head-end. Since the TiVo is not capable of two-way communication, it sends a channel-on request to the TA (via the USB cable), and the TA relays that request to the cable provider.

After digesting the above information and going back over your comments, my grasp of the Tuning Adapter function (and of your comments) is starting to make some sense.

However, there a still a couple points that are mysteries to me. If you guys wouldnt mind answering a few more questions (that I was too uninformed to ask before), maybe this will all become crystal clear (maybe a crystal with some inclusions).

Q1. (Relevant to Rev. 2B, only) If the POE filter blocks the MoCA signal from leaving the house, how does the TA upstream request signal (which I assume contains no usable data for neighboring households) get past the two filters? Is it because that request signal is an overlay whose frequency is not blocked by the filters?

Q2. If the TA sends that request signal upstream (presumably via the coax cable, since it doesnt seem like it would go back through the USB cable to the TiVo), why is that coax cable not connected to the TAs RF OUT port, instead of the RF IN port?

Q3. You both made the point that the TA needs to be isolated from the MoCA signal. Im not clear on why that is necessary  can you elaborate?


p.s. I also read that TiVo has developed an on-board TA function (eliminating the need for a TA), that is apparently software-based. However, for it to be implemented, they must have the cable providers cooperation. Do either of you know if this is pending?


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

missingwings said:


> Q1. (Relevant to Rev. 2B, only) If the POE filter blocks the MoCA signal from leaving the house, how does the TA upstream request signal (which I assume contains no usable data for neighboring households) get past the two filters? Is it because that request signal is an overlay whose frequency is not blocked by the filters?


The TA does not use MoCA at all. You don't want MoCA signals to get into the TA and interfere with it. The TA is really just a cable modem. If you had a cable modem, I would suggest a MoCA POE filter on that as well.



missingwings said:


> Q2. If the TA sends that request signal upstream (presumably via the coax cable, since it doesnt seem like it would go back through the USB cable to the TiVo), why is that coax cable not connected to the TAs RF OUT port, instead of the RF IN port?


RF IN is the signal connected to the cable company. RF out is simply connected to a (badly made) internal splitter. These are not one-way signals. Up and downstream connections are made over the one cable.



missingwings said:


> Q3. You both made the point that the TA needs to be isolated from the MoCA signal. Im not clear on why that is necessary  can you elaborate?


See my first response above.



missingwings said:


> p.s. I also read that TiVo has developed an on-board TA function (eliminating the need for a TA), that is apparently software-based. However, for it to be implemented, they must have the cable providers cooperation. Do either of you know if this is pending?


They can do this for cable company provided boxes, because they can arrange it with the cable company and have the box talk upstream through the internet. They have made it quite clear that this will never happen for retail product.


----------



## FORDguy97 (Feb 7, 2015)

missingwings said:


> Dear Arcady and FORDguy87,
> Thanks to you two, I'm ready to start running my cables behind the trim boards.


Great, sounds like we are a post or two away from you saying you have it all hooked up and ready to go.

Looks like Arcady has you squared away on your questions.

Good luck and have fun


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear Arcady,

Well, the TIVO project that you (along with FORDguy) helped me with extensively, back in February of 2015, was put on hold for various reasons. Since then, I've introduced Charter Cable Internet Service into the equation and have been attempting to incorporate the associated additional equipment (i.e. modem and router) into the cabling and equipment configuration plan that you guys guided me through.

I have attached what I believe to be the final plan (based on your previous guidance), and I am hoping that you can indulge me one more time before I take the final plunge and commit myself to the addition of a Tivo Roamio Pro to my current Charter television/internet services. Specifically, if you could please review the attached .pdf plan and make any comments and/or suggestions for improvements, and more importantly any issues that would prevent it from actually working. Thanks in advance for your assistance . . .


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

missingwings said:


> Dear Arcady,
> 
> Well, the TIVO project that you (along with FORDguy) helped me with extensively, back in February of 2015, was put on hold for various reasons. Since then, I've introduced Charter Cable Internet Service into the equation and have been attempting to incorporate the associated additional equipment (i.e. modem and router) into the cabling and equipment configuration plan that you guys guided me through.
> 
> I have attached what I believe to be the final plan (based on your previous guidance), and I am hoping that you can indulge me one more time before I take the final plunge and commit myself to the addition of a Tivo Roamio Pro to my current Charter television/internet services. Specifically, if you could please review the attached .pdf plan and make any comments and/or suggestions for improvements, and more importantly any issues that would prevent it from actually working. Thanks in advance for your assistance . . .


You may want to consider the new TiVo addition - the Bolt+. It is "replacement" for Roamio Pro.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

I would swap the cables going to the TA and Roamio so that the Roamio gets the stronger signal. And move the POE filter from the 2nd splitter to the input of the TA.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> ... and more importantly any issues that would prevent it from actually working.





mdavej said:


> I would swap the cables going to the TA and Roamio so that the Roamio gets the stronger signal. And move the POE filter from the 2nd splitter to the input of the TA.


The OP appears to be focused on optimizing the MoCA network at the potential expense of the TV signal strength, shrinking the MoCA network down to just the splitter going to the Roamio and the wall outlet routed to the Mini.

That said, knowing that MoCA can adjust its power settings to overcome attenuation, to a point, you could modify the configuration as mdavej suggested (and as recommended in the Cox TA/MoCA diagram), to preserve TV signal strength for the DVR. Further, the setup could be simplified by combining the 2 cascaded 2-way splitters into a single unbalanced 3-way splitter, connecting the DVR to the low-loss output.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman and mdavej,

Thank you both for your excellent feedback. I have implemented your suggestions (i.e. moved the POE filter to the coax input of the TA and swapped the coax cables for the outputs from the splitter to the DVR and the TA). I have also ordered an Antronix CMC2003H 3-way unbalanced splitter to replace the two cascaded 2-way splitters, with the low-loss leg to be routed to the DVR.

Follow-up Questions:

Q1. The splitter that I ordered is labeled 5-1002 MHz. Do I need one with a higher rating (this seems to be the only option listed on their website)?

Q2. In addition to the two POE filters, do I need a third one at the input to the Modem?

Q3. Some places suggest that I need a MOCA bridge, but elsewhere it says that the MOCA bridge is built into the Roamio Pro - which is correct?

Q4. If I do need a MOCA bridge, where does it go in my configuration?

Q5. Other than implementing these suggestions, can I assume that my configuration is acceptable?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> I have also ordered an Antronix CMC2003H 3-way unbalanced splitter to replace the two cascaded 2-way splitters, with the low-loss leg to be routed to the DVR.
> 
> Q1. The splitter that I ordered is labeled 5-1002 MHz. Do I need one with a higher rating (this seems to be the only option listed on their website)?


I tend to recommend the Holland MoCA 2.0-rated splitters because they've been shown to work well and are readily available. (see here) The Verizon Fios MoCA 2.0-rated splitters are also recommended but are a bit tougher to find in all varieties. (here, here)



missingwings said:


> Q2. In addition to the two POE filters, do I need a third one at the input to the Modem?


Probably not, but it depends on the model of modem. Some older modems do have problems with MoCA; newer modems less so. I'm using a Surfboard SB6141 that has a built-in MoCA filter. What brand/model number is your modem?



missingwings said:


> Q3. Some places suggest that I need a MOCA bridge, but elsewhere it says that the MOCA bridge is built into the Roamio Pro - which is correct?


Borrowing from a recent post...
BOLT & BOLT+, 6-tuner Roamio & 4-tuner Premiere DVRs are all capable of creating a MoCA network, provided they can connect to both your shared coax lines and via Ethernet to your router's Ethernet LAN ports (though not necessarily directly)​Per your diagram, your Roamio Pro *will* have the necessary coax & Ethernet connections to act as your MoCA bridge.



missingwings said:


> Q5. Other than implementing these suggestions, can I assume that my configuration is acceptable?


Assuming your modem is MoCA-compatible, no further adjustments should be needed, in my view.

Happy to help, missingwings. Let us know how it works out.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman,

Thanks again, for your continued feedback.

My modem is a CISCO DPC 3010, which appears to NOT be MoCA compatible, so I will add a third Holland MPOE-TM filter at the Coax input into the modem.

And thanks for the filter suggestion, but since you didn't indicate that the Antronix splitter will not work, I will stick with it, as it's on its way to me. Incidentally, the Holland filter has the same "pass band" rating (5-1002Mhz).


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> My modem is a CISCO DPC 3010, which appears to NOT be MoCA compatible, so I will add a third Holland MPOE-TM filter at the Coax input into the modem.


Sounds prudent.



missingwings said:


> And thanks for the filter suggestion, but since you didn't indicate that the Antronix splitter will not work, I will stick with it, as it's on its way to me.


I make no claims either way.



missingwings said:


> Incidentally, the Holland filter has the same "pass band" rating (5-1002Mhz).


Where are you reading/seeing that?


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> And thanks for the filter suggestion, but since you didn't indicate that the Antronix splitter will not work, I will stick with it, as it's on its way to me. Incidentally, the Holland filter has the same "pass band" rating (5-1002Mhz).


By the way, what "filter suggestion" did I make?

Your comment jumps from mentioning a filter suggestion, to your ordered Antronix splitter, and then back to a filter (further evidenced by use of the term "pass band"). It sounds like you're conflating the specs for the ordered 3-way Antronix *splitter* with a Holland PoE MoCA *filter*.

The only recommendation I made above was regarding MoCA 2.0-rated splitters, Holland or Verizon, for which I provided links to specific products that were decidedly not filters (and just confirmed, again) -- and for which you'll find specs differing from the Antronix splitter.

But, to be clear, and reiterating my previous post, I'm making no claims either way as to the compatibility of the Antronix splitter -- nor am I saying that you must purchase and install these MoCA 2.0-rated splitters. MoCA was designed to work with basic cable components, so odds are in your favor.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman,

My apologies, in my haste to respond before having to leave the house, I typed "filter" when I should've typed "splitter." I wasn't questioning your expertise, I was merely confirming in a roundabout way that you weren't implying that the splitter I chose would not work.

As for the Holland filter's 5-1002Mhz spec, it came directly from its cut sheet which I found on the Holland website.

Again, thanks much for all of your great feedback . . .


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> My apologies, in my haste to respond before having to leave the house, I typed "filter" when I should've typed "splitter." I wasn't questioning your expertise, I was merely confirming in a roundabout way that you weren't implying that the splitter I chose would not work.
> 
> As for the Holland filter's 5-1002Mhz spec, it came directly from its cut sheet which I found on the Holland website.


I didn't take it as an assault on my expertise; it just doesn't seem like we're talking about the same product, based on the words used. The specs you cite are not reflective of the Holland MoCA 2.0 splitters to which I linked above.

Those links:
http://www.techtoolsupply.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=catv+moca
http://www.hollandelectronics.com/catalog/upload_file/GHS-PRO-M.pdf​And, again, this information is not to question the Antronix splitter; I'm merely trying to clarify seeming confusion over the Holland MoCA 2.0 splitters and their specs.

---
edit: p.s. ...


missingwings said:


> As for the Holland filter's 5-1002Mhz spec, it came directly from its cut sheet which I found on the Holland website.




If you have a link to that cut sheet, that's what I was looking for, in order to see exactly what you were referring to.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman,

Maybe we're talking about two different filters. I have been unable to retrace my steps to give you the link where my download was sourced, so I have attached it for your review. The .pdf is larger than the forum's 100KB limit, so it's attached in .jpg format - hopefully still readable.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> Incidentally, the Holland filter has the same "pass band" rating (5-1002Mhz).


The Holland MoCA filter's "pass band" frequency range is the same as the Antronix 3-way splitter's spec'd frequency range ... because they're both designed to pass standard OTA & cable TV signals, 5-1002 MHz.

As for MoCA signals, from 1125-1675 MHz, the MoCA filter is designed to block these frequencies; and while MoCA is outside the Antronix splitter's spec'd range, where attenuation is undocumented, performance should be acceptable for MoCA networks configured to use lower frequencies closer to the splitter's known-good range.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> Maybe we're talking about two different filters. I have been unable to retrace my steps to give you the link where my download was sourced, so I have attached it for your review. The .pdf is larger than the forum's 100KB limit, so it's attached in .jpg format - hopefully still readable.


Well, that definitely clears it up some. I felt like you were referring to a filter, rather than a splitter, but the mystery is how that PoE MoCA filter got into the conversation.

We're not talking about "two different filters." I've been referring to Holland MoCA 2.0 splitters, repeatedly and with specific links to the products recommended. The need for MoCA filters has been discussed, resulting in your decision to include 3 in your setup: at the PoE, on your TA, and on your modem; however, the MoCA filters are wholly unrelated to your earlier question re: the Antronix 3-way splitter...


missingwings said:


> I have also ordered an Antronix CMC2003H 3-way unbalanced *splitter* to replace the two cascaded 2-way *splitters*, with the low-loss leg to be routed to the DVR.
> 
> Q1. The *splitter* that I ordered is labeled 5-1002 MHz. Do I need one with a higher rating (this seems to be the only option listed on their website)?


... or my response to this question ...


krkaufman said:


> I tend to recommend the Holland MoCA 2.0-rated *splitters* because they've been shown to work well and are readily available. (see here) The Verizon Fios MoCA 2.0-rated *splitters* are also recommended but are a bit tougher to find in all varieties. (here, here)


... but somehow lead to this confusing statement intermingling splitters and filters:


missingwings said:


> And thanks for the *filter *suggestion, *but *since you didn't indicate that the Antronix *splitter* will not work, I will stick with it, as it's on its way to me. Incidentally, the Holland *filter* has the same "pass band" rating (5-1002Mhz).


This particular branch of the conversation had nothing to do with filters.

- - -

... though I may finally be understanding my misunderstanding of what you may have been trying to communicate.

Fed by your accidental 'filter suggestion' typo, this final comment really confused things for me...


missingwings said:


> Incidentally, the Holland *filter* has the same "pass band" rating (5-1002Mhz).


The Holland filter has the same "pass band" rating as what? It certainly doesn't have the same "pass band" rating as any splitter, since "pass band" is strictly a filtering term -- and that frequency range certainly doesn't match the specs for the MoCA 2.0 splitters to which I'd linked.

I've now come to assume that what you were saying, as a statement in defense of the Antronix splitter choice (_"The splitter that I ordered is labeled 5-1002 MHz"_), was that the spec'd "pass band" frequency range for the Holland PoE MoCA filter was the same frequency range as the ordered Antronix 3-way splitter.

Yes, the Antronix splitter and MoCA filter pass band frequencies are the same, but it isn't "incidental." Ironically, the frequency ranges match for the same reason I was recommending the Holland and Verizon MoCA 2.0 splitters: the Antronix splitter is spec'd only for standard cable TV signals, frequencies 5-1002 MHz, rather than for the wider frequency range that would include the full MoCA 2.0 bandwidth, 5-1675 MHz. A MoCA filter is designed to block MoCA signals, so it will by design block everything above the TV frequencies, allowing only the TV frequencies through, 5-1002 MHz, the same range for which the MoCA-ignorant Antronix splitter was designed.

The key difference between the Antronix splitter and the Holland MoCA filter you referenced (aside from the whole 'splitter v filter' thing) are the attenuation characteristics beyond the spec'd frequencies. The MoCA filter by design will have a steep drop-off beyond the "pass band" (i.e. high attenuation) because it's designed to block frequencies above the pass band; however, a splitter is designed to deliver known performance within its spec'd range, with unpredictable (or at least undocumented) performance outside this range. Thus the recommendation to use known-good MoCA 2.0 splitters.

With all that said, once again, I am not stating that the Antronix splitter will not work (or that it will). As previously commented, MoCA was designed to work with standard cable TV splitters, capable of adjusting their power output to overcome resistant components, to a point, so you'll likely have success with the Antronix splitter.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman,

Wow - I certainly didn't intend to cause you to spend so much time responding to my mundane issues - although I continue to be grateful for your expertise. It should be apparent by now, that electronics is not my life's passion. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering, so I have only ventured into this field out of necessity. All you have to do is to read my original posts to bear this out.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you and others have patiently steered me through the fog, and I think I've reached my destination.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> My degree is in Mechanical Engineering,


That explains the rather excellent diagrams, and access to AutoCAD. I especially like your private library of objects for such diagrams; I just wish there were some public domain program where we could share such a library, to facilitate creation of diagrams as professional as yours.



missingwings said:


> Anyway, the bottom line is that you and others have patiently steered me through the fog, and I think I've reached my destination.


Yes, I think you're all set based on your comments up through the addition of the MoCA filter on your DPC3010. My apologies for my contributions to fog creation from that point forward.

Good luck with the project ... you've done a great job on planning.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

To all (especially FORDguy87, Arcady, mdavej and krkaufman, who have all been extremely helpful with my past postings),

I took all of the input I had received from you guys, and incorporated it into a theoretical configuration diagram, which pretty much passed everyone's review at that point. However, due to some personal issues (long story) and a recent Charter development - more about that below - I never did get around to taking the plunge in setting up my final Tivo system.

Maybe in some ways, that's a good thing, as it seems there is now a 6-tuner Bolt+ to replace the Roamio Pro. But the main development is that our HOA has decided to implement a complex-wide Charter MDU project, fed by fiber. That project consists of installing an enclosure (Strong SM-RBX-14-WH) inside each unit - this "SWB" will contain: (1) wired router, (2) modem, (3) WAP, (4) Managed PDU and a POE Injector.

Taking what I had previously drawn up (note that I am now showing Holland Moca 2.0-rated splitters and eliminating one of the original three), then incorporating what I could glean about the pending SWB (strictly from a digital photo) and without yet seeing the actual components to be populated, I have updated my configuration diagram.

At the risk of wearing out my welcome, I would ask that you take one more look at what I've come up with to address these changes (see attached) - any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. And if there's anything I can do in return (AutoCAD blocks, or ??), please ask.

In addition to another review (hopefully the final, depending on feedback), I'd also like to float a few questions by you to cement my understanding. Specifically:

Q1. Does the term "Managed PDU" (inside the SWB) imply that the unit is somehow physically interfaced with the incoming coax, such that Charter needs to communicate with the PDU?

Q2. If A1 is yes, does the first POE Filter still allow that upstream flow?

Q3. Of the POE filters that may or may not be required, do I have them oriented in the correct direction (especially the one at the TA - maybe I have it backwards)?

Q4. I realize the following question has been addressed before, but still not totally grasping the function of the POE filter and considering the major change to the configuration, I need to re-confirm the answer. If I recall previous comments, the need for the one at the modem is dependent upon whether or not the modem has a built-in filter, and since I don't yet know the model, I will leave it in until I can research the model number. But with all of that notwithstanding, do I really need three POE filters?

Q5. Is there anything about the Charter (Spectrum) service being fiber-based that would suggest that the incoming feed will no longer utilize switched digital video channels (i.e. that the SDV TA can be eliminated)? I know I could ask this of Charter, but finding the right answer from them could be problematic.

Thank you all, once more, for any feedback you may be able to lend . . .


----------



## fcfc2 (Feb 19, 2015)

Nicely done diagram. I would consider using one 4 way MoCA splitter in place of B-1 and B-2. The current setup optimizes the signal strength to the cable modem as it is but at the expense of everything else. 
You may not need the additional MoCA filter on the input of the cable modem, unless you determine it is causing you interference. MoCA filters are not directional.
I don't know what a "managed PDU" is so someone else will have to answer that part. If MoCA filters cost $25 each, I would be concerned about how many I had on hand, but better to have too many and be ready for all options when the time comes.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> But the main development is that our HOA has decided to implement a complex-wide Charter MDU project, fed by fiber.


Other than redundant or trivial feedback...

As fcfc2 pointed-out, MoCA filters are bi-directional so the barrel connectors/adapters wouldn't be needed.

Diagram doesn't indicate which line would connect to the low-loss output of the GHS-3PRO-M. IMO, you'd want the modem and DVR connecting to the 2-way and low-loss output of the 3-way, respectively, but swapping them depending on need. And fcfc2's suggestion of using a single 4-way may be more MoCA-friendly, if the signal strength allows its use.

I'd think you'd want to upgrade the in-wall 2-way splitter to a MoCA-compatible GHS-2PRO-M, as well.

Typo ... "MOCA-BASED CONFIGURATION"
... everything seems in order.

Unfortunately, I can't provide any feedback on the managed PDU, POE inserter or whether your Charter install would even be fed by coax or if the install is even compatible with a TiVo DVR (i.e. IPTV vs QAM). If it's a fiber install, where's the device converting from fiber to coax?

Many of your questions seem only answerable by Charter.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman,

_. . . MoCA filters are bi-directional so the barrel connectors/adapters wouldn't be needed._
Yes, I found conflicting info, even on TivoCommunity, but I've since reached the same conclusion. That really cuts down on pieces (and maybe signal loss).

_. . . you'd want the modem and DVR connecting to the 2-way and low-loss output of the 3-way, respectively . . . _
That's exactly how I have drawn it (the rightmost output of the 3-way is the low-loss - 3.9dB vs. 7.7 on the other two)

_. . . using a single 4-way may be more MoCA-friendly, if the signal strength allows its use._
There doesn't appear to be an unbalanced version of the 4-way (at least not from Holland) - maybe that doesn't matter, hence your "if the signal strength allows" verbiage.

_. . . upgrade the in-wall 2-way splitter to a MoCA-compatible GHS-2PRO-M, as well._
That's a great suggestion - I will definitely do that (probably with a 2-way unbalanced in order to give the higher priority tv the better signal).

_Typo ... "MOCA-BASED CONFIGURATION"_
Yeah, I saw that too, after I posted.

_I can't provide any feedback on . . . whether your Charter install would even be fed by coax . . ._
The fiber comment relates to the incoming Charter feed to outdoor pull boxes at each of nine condo buildings. From there it's apparently converted to coax, as that's what's coming into each unit, so probably not an issue.

_. . . if the install is even compatible with a TiVo DVR (i.e. IPTV vs QAM)_
We currently have a Charter-supplied DVR (Arris DCX3520e-M), but I will follow up with Charter in case this rollout is changing to IPTV (hard to fathom, but possible).

p.s. Thanks much for your continuing feedback . . .


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

missingwings said:


> _... That's exactly how I have drawn it (the rightmost output of the 3-way is the low-loss - 3.9dB vs. 7.7 on the other two)_


Yeah, probably should have zoomed.

_


missingwings said:



... There doesn't appear to be an unbalanced version of the 4-way (at least not from Holland) - maybe that doesn't matter, hence your "if the signal strength allows" verbiage.

Click to expand...

_In retrospect, you might get the best performance by sticking with your cascaded 2-way and 3-way splitters... but moving the "PoE" MoCA filter to the input of the 3-way, reducing the scope of the MoCA network. The MoCA signal isn't needed in the junction box (SWB), so no reason to add the extra loss; and shifting the "PoE" MoCA filter would eliminate any concern about the MoCA compatibility of the modem, as well.

_


missingwings said:



... I will definitely do that (probably with a 2-way unbalanced in order to give the higher priority tv the better signal).

Click to expand...

_I haven't ever seen an "unbalanced 2-way" -- unless you're suggesting a tap, and I'm not sure how well a tap works with MoCA.


----------



## missingwings (Mar 31, 2011)

Dear krkaufman,

_. . . best performance . . . moving the "PoE" MoCA filter to the input of the 3-way . . ._
Thanks, great idea. Eliminates one filter and the modem concern, plus it reduces loss. And the good news is that I think I now totally understand the filter's function. Done!

. _. . ever seen an "unbalanced 2-way" . . ._
No, I wasn't thinking of a tap - just my inexperience talking.


----------

