Will I get better TV channels with RG6 wire?

L

lbbs

Guest
will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?
 
This depends on the length of the cable, and the actual losses in comparison
to the signal levels coming in at the beginning of the cable. If you are at
less than about 100 feet from the source, and are using the proper matched
RF cable to begin with, then there may not be much viewable difference, if
any.

--

Greetings,

Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
=========================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
=========================================


"lbbs" <lbbs @dadffo.ca> wrote in message
news:gMwwb.1228$oe.110339@read1.cgocable.net...
will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?
 
"Jerry G." <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpu7a4$r23$2@news.eusc.inter.net...
This depends on the length of the cable, and the actual losses in
comparison
to the signal levels coming in at the beginning of the cable. If you are
at
less than about 100 feet from the source, and are using the proper matched
RF cable to begin with, then there may not be much viewable difference, if
any.

--

Greetings,

Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
=========================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
=========================================


"lbbs" <lbbs @dadffo.ca> wrote in message
news:gMwwb.1228$oe.110339@read1.cgocable.net...
will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?

RG6 has less loss than RG59. RG11 has less loss than RG6. If hooked up to a
Click to expand...
cable system, or if static is a problem, use quad shielded RG6 or RG11.

Richard.
 
will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?
Click to expand...
It usually makes the biggest difference in high UHF channels. While RG59 will
pass a strong UHF signal transparently enough, there are other considerations.
On the downside RG59 (even 59U) will attenuate the high UHF alot more than
properly insalled RG6. Conductor spacing causes capacitance and it's loss per
foot is thus determined unequivocably. On the upside, RG59 is more hideable and
it wil bend around tighter corners.

Now RG6 is thicker, hard to hide and shouldn't be bent sharply, like across the
corner of a floor joist. If you want the advantages of RG 59 inside, at the
very least use RG6 outside. Make sure it has a proper drip loop. This keeps the
rain from getting into the space between your inner and outer walls.

If you need alot of outlets RG59 might be the way to go inside, but not
outside.

JURB
 
lbbs wrote:

will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?


In most cases (and assuming proper installation) I doubt you'll see a
Click to expand...
difference.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie
 
CJT wrote:
lbbs wrote:

will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?


In most cases (and assuming proper installation) I doubt you'll see a
difference.
Click to expand...
This is one of those things where IF I was replacing it anyway, I would
go with the RG6. But I would not upgrade unless the old cable needed
replacing.
 
Asimov wrote:

"JURB6006" bravely wrote to "All" (25 Nov 03 03:07:07)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Will I get better TV channels with RG6 wire?"

According to a graph I saw, even 300 ohm foam twin-lead works better at
UHF than RG59. RG59 attenuation shoots up really fast at UHF by
comparison. Doesn't RG6 have a slightly different impedance, something
like 73 ohms instead of 75?

snip
Click to expand...

As I recall, twin lead is less lossy than RG6, too, so that doesn't
help the choice between RG6 and RG59 much.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie
 
"JURB6006" bravely wrote to "All" (25 Nov 03 03:07:07)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Will I get better TV channels with RG6 wire?"

According to a graph I saw, even 300 ohm foam twin-lead works better at
UHF than RG59. RG59 attenuation shoots up really fast at UHF by
comparison. Doesn't RG6 have a slightly different impedance, something
like 73 ohms instead of 75?


JU> From: jurb6006@aol.com (JURB6006)

will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?
Click to expand...
JU> It usually makes the biggest difference in high UHF channels. While
JU> RG59 will pass a strong UHF signal transparently enough, there are
JU> other considerations. On the downside RG59 (even 59U) will attenuate
JU> the high UHF alot more than properly insalled RG6. Conductor spacing
JU> causes capacitance and it's loss per foot is thus determined
JU> unequivocably. On the upside, RG59 is more hideable and it wil bend
JU> around tighter corners.
JU> Now RG6 is thicker, hard to hide and shouldn't be bent sharply, like
JU> across the corner of a floor joist. If you want the advantages of RG 59
JU> inside, at the very least use RG6 outside. Make sure it has a proper
JU> drip loop. This keeps the rain from getting into the space between your
JU> inner and outer walls.
JU> If you need alot of outlets RG59 might be the way to go inside, but
JU> not outside.


.... Reactance: your imaginary friend.
 
What about cleaning up the connection at the antenna, by cutting off the end
that is corroded and reconnecting it to the antenna?



p.s. Is it true that a preamplifier is not recommended - I was told that it
might improve high and low channels but make the middle channels worst.

"CJT" <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3FC43BC0.9000601@prodigy.net...
Asimov wrote:

"JURB6006" bravely wrote to "All" (25 Nov 03 03:07:07)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Will I get better TV channels with RG6
wire?"

According to a graph I saw, even 300 ohm foam twin-lead works better at
UHF than RG59. RG59 attenuation shoots up really fast at UHF by
comparison. Doesn't RG6 have a slightly different impedance, something
like 73 ohms instead of 75?

snip

As I recall, twin lead is less lossy than RG6, too, so that doesn't
help the choice between RG6 and RG59 much.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie
Click to expand...
 
In article <3FC43BC0.9000601@prodigy.net>, abujlehc@prodigy.net says...
Asimov wrote:

"JURB6006" bravely wrote to "All" (25 Nov 03 03:07:07)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Will I get better TV channels with RG6 wire?"

According to a graph I saw, even 300 ohm foam twin-lead works better at
UHF than RG59. RG59 attenuation shoots up really fast at UHF by
comparison. Doesn't RG6 have a slightly different impedance, something
like 73 ohms instead of 75?

snip

As I recall, twin lead is less lossy than RG6, too, so that doesn't
help the choice between RG6 and RG59 much.
Click to expand...
But isn't twinlead MUCH pickier about routing it? I remember you needed
to have those little standoffs to keep it away from anything metal.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross
 
I just punched RG6 into a search engine and the page that I got has it
listed as 75 ohms.

"Asimov" <Asimov@-removethis-bbs.juxtaposition.dynip.com> wrote in message
news:MSGID_1=3a167=2f133.0_3fc4363d@fidonet.org...
"JURB6006" bravely wrote to "All" (25 Nov 03 03:07:07)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: Will I get better TV channels with RG6
wire?"

According to a graph I saw, even 300 ohm foam twin-lead works better at
UHF than RG59. RG59 attenuation shoots up really fast at UHF by
comparison. Doesn't RG6 have a slightly different impedance, something
like 73 ohms instead of 75?


JU> From: jurb6006@aol.com (JURB6006)

will the picture quality be noticeably better? or not worth the upgrade?



JU> It usually makes the biggest difference in high UHF channels. While
JU> RG59 will pass a strong UHF signal transparently enough, there are
JU> other considerations. On the downside RG59 (even 59U) will attenuate
JU> the high UHF alot more than properly insalled RG6. Conductor spacing
JU> causes capacitance and it's loss per foot is thus determined
JU> unequivocably. On the upside, RG59 is more hideable and it wil bend
JU> around tighter corners.
JU> Now RG6 is thicker, hard to hide and shouldn't be bent sharply, like
JU> across the corner of a floor joist. If you want the advantages of RG
59
JU> inside, at the very least use RG6 outside. Make sure it has a proper
JU> drip loop. This keeps the rain from getting into the space between
your
JU> inner and outer walls.
JU> If you need alot of outlets RG59 might be the way to go inside, but
JU> not outside.


... Reactance: your imaginary friend.
Click to expand...
 
In article <1069871249.109551@news.vaxxine.com>, lbbs wrote:

p.s. Is it true that a preamplifier is not recommended - I was told that it
might improve high and low channels but make the middle channels worst.
Click to expand...
No, the problem with a preamplifier is that it will be overloaded by
strong signals. For example, you live 5 miles from a station and the
next station is 50 miles away. The strong station will overload the
preamp. On some preamps, it may only cause trouble on adjacent channels,
such as 2 and 4 if it's channel 3, (note that 6 and 7 and 12 and 13 are
NOT adjacent) on others it will wipe the whole thing out.

This also applies to local stations in the same frequency range, such
as FM broadcasts, airport control towers etc.

If on the other hand ALL stations are far away, it will most likely
help. The best kind of preamp is "mast mounted", where the active
part is near the antenna.

HINT: If your preamp is overloaded by a strong local signal, a notch filter,
similar to the kind used to steal cable signals in the old days (does
anyone still use that method of protecting cable signals?) would help
if placed BEFORE the preamp. Despite being offered by spammers as
"cable descramblers" for a fee, the plans are easily found and can
be made for a few dollars.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm@mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: geoffrey_mendelson@hotmail.com (Not for email)
 
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbsbvmh.hrt.gsm@cable.mendelson.com...
In article <1069871249.109551@news.vaxxine.com>, lbbs wrote:

p.s. Is it true that a preamplifier is not recommended - I was told
that it
might improve high and low channels but make the middle channels worst.

No, the problem with a preamplifier is that it will be overloaded by
strong signals. For example, you live 5 miles from a station and the
next station is 50 miles away. The strong station will overload the
preamp. On some preamps, it may only cause trouble on adjacent channels,
such as 2 and 4 if it's channel 3, (note that 6 and 7 and 12 and 13 are
NOT adjacent) on others it will wipe the whole thing out.

This also applies to local stations in the same frequency range, such
as FM broadcasts, airport control towers etc.

If on the other hand ALL stations are far away, it will most likely
help. The best kind of preamp is "mast mounted", where the active
part is near the antenna.

HINT: If your preamp is overloaded by a strong local signal, a notch
filter,
similar to the kind used to steal cable signals in the old days (does
anyone still use that method of protecting cable signals?) would help
if placed BEFORE the preamp. Despite being offered by spammers as
"cable descramblers" for a fee, the plans are easily found and can
be made for a few dollars.

Geoff.
Click to expand...
The notch filters were used to steal it? When I was about 8 years old I
found a box outside my aunt's house while I was staying there that had a
whole bunch of notch filters chained together, I removed them and tossed
them in the bushes and had a whole bunch of new channels to watch, don't
think my aunt ever noticed but it was like that for years until she moved to
a new place.
 
All our channels are far away (except 2 channels that we never watch
anyways). What do I all need to install an amplifier? Could I do it my
self? Do I need a ladder or can I do it by climbing the tower?

Also, switching to an 8 foot antenna, will that make a noticable
difference (ours is a 6ft or ant.)?

p.s. Is it true that a preamplifier is not recommended - I was told that it
might improve high and low channels but make the middle channels worst.

No, the problem with a preamplifier is that it will be overloaded by
strong signals. For example, you live 5 miles from a station and the
next station is 50 miles away. The strong station will overload the
preamp. On some preamps, it may only cause trouble on adjacent channels,
such as 2 and 4 if it's channel 3, (note that 6 and 7 and 12 and 13 are
NOT adjacent) on others it will wipe the whole thing out.

This also applies to local stations in the same frequency range, such
as FM broadcasts, airport control towers etc.

If on the other hand ALL stations are far away, it will most likely
help. The best kind of preamp is "mast mounted", where the active
part is near the antenna.

HINT: If your preamp is overloaded by a strong local signal, a notch filter,
similar to the kind used to steal cable signals in the old days (does
anyone still use that method of protecting cable signals?) would help
if placed BEFORE the preamp. Despite being offered by spammers as
"cable descramblers" for a fee, the plans are easily found and can
be made for a few dollars.

Geoff.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top