View Single Post
Old 6-Oct-2011, 10:31 PM   #11
GroundUrMast
Moderator
 
GroundUrMast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Greater Seattle Area
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabt View Post
... what benefit will plain rg6 provide over quad? ...
Cost.

Quad shield is appropriate for satellite systems. Satellite systems convert the signal received at the dish to an intermediate frequency range. The link from the LNB at the dish, to the receiver, is a closed system that uses frequencies also in use by terrestrial services. There needs to be a great deal of shielding protection to keep the terrestrial services and satellite system from interfering with one another. A little bit of land based point-to-point microwave signal leaking into a satellite LNB-Receiver link would interfere with reliable reception of the satellite signal.

Over the air reception uses an open system, where the 'opening' is the antenna. The minute amount of signal that may leak through two layers of shielding versus four, is not relevant given that the antenna's object and purpose is to get signal coupled into the coax from the air. Over the air TV uses frequencies assigned exclusively to that service, to minimize interference.

The loss per foot is virtually identical between RG-6 and RG-6Q.

If the price is cheaper for quad... use it.
__________________
If the well is dry and you don't see rain on the horizon, you'll need to dig the hole deeper. (If the antenna can't get the job done, an amp won't fix it.)

(Please direct account activation inquiries to 'admin')

Last edited by GroundUrMast; 7-Oct-2011 at 7:43 AM.
GroundUrMast is offline   Reply With Quote