Please help me design this AV network properly

[Sam Gangee]

Why do you want to buy cable from a book store? Why not buy from a specialist?

Having said that, Lucid has an Amazon store but I don't see speaker cable:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=k:lucid+av

WF100 is generally good for up to 30m with an LNB signal. However, the multiswitch will normally handle up to 60m so it should be OK, provided that your dish is large enough.

 

[Mr_T25]

Purely convenience as I rely on Amazon Prime esp with last min ordering for my builders to put on. Besides you're buying from a giant whose no longer a book store but a platform so makes no difference if it's directly from a retailer or the retailer selling on the Amazon platform.

Yes will be going with a 60cm dish. WF100 cable already installed but couldn't find a decent speaker cable so installed the one I bought, today for one room.

 

[ericmark]

When I was young I tried to future proof. I installed 8 core cable to telephone points and had twin sockets at each point, one was direct the other internal and the fax machine would link the two and the telephone had two ringing tones one auto started fax the other just rang so two numbers and one phone line. The whole lot is now redundant, no longer use fax and phones all cord less.
Point is don't bother trying to future proof just fit what you need now, as likely everything will change.
I think there are about 4 programs you can get with freeview and not with freesat so is it really worth having freeview?
Sky are using fibre optic broad band and you can watch TV on the PC. Not sure if dishes and LNB's will be used in the future? Not sure what this new sky box does, for me really no point I am still in the land time forgot and use SCART plugs, and RF links to rooms. Even my TV's are old analogue types.
But I would say size matters, watch TV on 14 inch screen in bed room and even a poor signal looks OK. But on a over head projector you really need the HD and I can't send HD through my coax.
Using free to air or freesat receivers has some advantages. The programs recorded are not encoded so can be transferred device to device quickly i.e. not real time.
My advice is look at what you want now, and design for that only, designing for future does not work. Don't make same mistake as my son and I. He also tried to future proof, at every radiator he put a LAN connection to work the electronic thermostatic radiator valve. But you can't buy hard wired valves they are all wire less.
He does use PC's to watch TV with and yes that works well. All programs can be transferred with LAN, only one PC with a DVB-S card the rest link to that PC.
Plan 10 times, do the job once.

 

[ey143]

Edit: post removed

 

[Sam Gangee]

I think there are about 4 programs you can get with freeview and not with freesat so is it really worth having freeview?

TV addicts tell me "yes". If, for example, the LNB fails, they can continue to get their "fix". I feel sad for people such as this, who probably never sat down to read a good book, but they think it's worth having both systems for "an emergency".

 

[Lucid]

When I was young I tried to future proof...
Point is don't bother trying to future proof just fit what you need now, as likely everything will change.

It's very true that it is impossible to future-proof in absolute terms. Having said that, it is possible to look at the trends in the market and take an educated guess at what might be happening in the medium term (say 3-5 years in the Tech' world). Beyond that then the next best plan is to put in an infrastructure that makes the inevitable wiring changes easier to accomplish in the future without ripping in to the walls, floors and ceilings. For that you're looking at conduit and draw strings to make pulling new cable easier in the future.

As for trends, the most obvious is the shift to streaming and 'on demand' services available across multiple platforms. This is going to put a lot of strain on customer's wireless networks, so a good plan is to get as much gear hardwired as possible so that wireless-only devices have as little competition for bandwidth as possible. This means running Ethernet cable (not Home Plugs) to any fixed devices such as TVs, consoles, media streamers etc.

I think there are about 4 programs you can get with freeview and not with freesat so is it really worth having freeview?

It's a fair question, and everyone will have their own view. IMO, despite the sea change to streaming there's still a justifiable case for Freeview given (a) the minimal set-up cost, (b) the fact that every TV has a Freeview tuner, (c) the licence fee is already required for satellite so why not add Freeview, (d) Freeview recording is built in to many TVs, and finally (e) it's an easy way to get a HD broadcast signal on to a HDTV display.

Sky are using fibre optic broad band and you can watch TV on the PC. Not sure if dishes and LNB's will be used in the future? Not sure what this new sky box does...

Unless something very radical happens then I seriously doubt that Murdoch will abandon his investments in satellite technology only to replace it with fibre broadband where he has to pay BT for access. This would mean him throwing away not only money but also a massive advantage that satellite has; it can reach homes where terrestrial and BB can't.

The new Sky boxes make it possible to port content from one box on to other capable TVs in the house. This will be done using Home Plugs. In effect it's in-house streaming. The price for this new tech though is very high.


No argument with "plan 10 times, do the job once"

 

[winston1]

[QUOTE="Lucid, post: 3632101, member: 208119"

The new Sky boxes make it possible to port content from one box on to other capable TVs in the house. This will be done using Home Plugs. In effect it's in-house streaming. The price for this new tech though is very high.

[/QUOTE]

Let's hope you are wrong. Homeplugs/PLT causes serious interference to other nearby users of the RF spectrum. The Sky Q boxes do have this built in but it has not been enabled. I suggest Sky are a bit wary due to the interference issues.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/13/bbc_plt/

 

[SimonH2]

Beyond that then the next best plan is to put in an infrastructure that makes the inevitable wiring changes easier to accomplish in the future without ripping in to the walls, floors and ceilings. For that you're looking at conduit and draw strings to make pulling new cable easier in the future.

Indeed, don't plaster any cables in, put in conduits "properly"* so when things change you have the option of lifting a floorboard or two and changing cables.
One thing that "irritates" me is where there's conduit in the plaster, but it stops 1/2 inch from the backbox so the cables can do a dogleg to reach the hole - so it still means digging into the wall to change a cable. It takes more time (which is why professionals never do it), but whenever I am doing any work, I'll "fix" this wo all my conduit terminates into the box and cables can be added/removed/replaced if needed.

As for trends, the most obvious is the shift to streaming and 'on demand' services available across multiple platforms. This is going to put a lot of strain on customer's wireless networks, so a good plan is to get as much gear hardwired as possible so that wireless-only devices have as little competition for bandwidth as possible. This means running Ethernet cable (not Home Plugs) to any fixed devices such as TVs, consoles, media streamers etc.

While I see streaming picking up, I also think predictions of the death of broadcast are premature.
To start with, fast internet access is not ubiquitous - both hardwired and mobile. One transmitter (Winter Hill for me) gets a lot of programs to millions of people, satellite covers even more. The infrastructure behind those is "relatively" modest compared to that behind streaming services which require massive storage and process facilities. Not to mention, if we all switched to streaming tomorrow, then it wouldn't work for anyone as I don't think any ISP actually has the infrastructure to handle the traffic that would involve.

 

[Sam Gangee]

While I see streaming picking up, I also think predictions of the death of broadcast are premature.

Our illustrious government has plans to sell off ALL of the UHF bandwidth for mobile use ASAP. This is being done in stages but channels 61 - 68 have already gone and 51 to 60 will be gone in a (very) few years.

Broadcast satellites could be wiped out by a solar storm and it would take a long time to replace them so, if/when that happens, I think that satellite TV will disappear forever.

Also (donning my tinfoil hat) governments love to know the exact location of every citizen so they like the idea of mobile phones and of every home having its own IP address. That, alone, would be sufficient reason to phase out broadcast TV ASAP.

 

[Lucid]

While I see streaming picking up, I also think predictions of the death of broadcast are premature.

Others may be making that prediction (not here, but elsewhere), but I haven't. However, there's a generation of kids growing in to teen- and in to adult- consumers for whom linear TV is something that they have already abandoned. They just don't sit down and watch live TV in the way their parents did or do.

To start with, fast internet access is not ubiquitous - both hardwired and mobile. One transmitter (Winter Hill for me) gets a lot of programs to millions of people, satellite covers even more. The infrastructure behind those is "relatively" modest compared to that behind streaming services which require massive storage and process facilities. Not to mention, if we all switched to streaming tomorrow, then it wouldn't work for anyone as I don't think any ISP actually has the infrastructure to handle the traffic that would involve.

Granted, fast internet isn't available everywhere. In fact if you look at rural communities it's not uncommon for them to struggle to achieve a consistent 1 Meg let alone anything remotely considered 'fast'. The issue isn't restricted to rural communities either. There are towns and cities with fast internet black spots too; so yes, broadcast TV will be around for the foreseeable future, but equally the "have it now" generation are going to be increasingly calling the shots so the writing looks to be on the wall.

 

[Mr_T25]

When I was young I tried to future proof. I installed 8 core cable to telephone points and had twin sockets at each point, one was direct the other internal and the fax machine would link the two and the telephone had two ringing tones one auto started fax the other just rang so two numbers and one phone line. The whole lot is now redundant, no longer use fax and phones all cord less.
Point is don't bother trying to future proof just fit what you need now, as likely everything will change.
I think there are about 4 programs you can get with freeview and not with freesat so is it really worth having freeview?
Sky are using fibre optic broad band and you can watch TV on the PC. Not sure if dishes and LNB's will be used in the future? Not sure what this new sky box does, for me really no point I am still in the land time forgot and use SCART plugs, and RF links to rooms. Even my TV's are old analogue types.
But I would say size matters, watch TV on 14 inch screen in bed room and even a poor signal looks OK. But on a over head projector you really need the HD and I can't send HD through my coax.
Using free to air or freesat receivers has some advantages. The programs recorded are not encoded so can be transferred device to device quickly i.e. not real time.
My advice is look at what you want now, and design for that only, designing for future does not work. Don't make same mistake as my son and I. He also tried to future proof, at every radiator he put a LAN connection to work the electronic thermostatic radiator valve. But you can't buy hard wired valves they are all wire less.
He does use PC's to watch TV with and yes that works well. All programs can be transferred with LAN, only one PC with a DVB-S card the rest link to that PC.
Plan 10 times, do the job once.

Too late for me now. I've literally put in 3 coax WD100 cables into each room, 5 Cat6 cables, 1-2 speaker cables and 1 telephone cable, all running back to an A/V room. Figured that since my walls and ceilings were already open, the cost cost to me was a few hundred pounds of cable but a selling point for the house if I ever came to sell it. Granted its unlikely that I will ever need or use the TV points in all the rooms, but hey, cable is inexpensive. I agree about the comments on streaming.