On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:41:42 GMT, (Beachcomber)
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:58:08 GMT, Steve Kraus
wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Any reason you need to replace the coax? Just curious.

Maybe it's RG59. Not clear if he means the runs in the walls or just the
interconnects.

RG59 is more suitable for baseband video signals vs. broadband
broadcast RF.

Hokum. Blanket statements such as these suggest that you don't know
what you're talking about.


If you want the best, specify RG6/U Quad shield cable. Use of cheaper
cables can allow VHF broadcast signals (CH2 - 13) to penetrate the
crappy shielding and cause ghosts and interference.

Take a look at your nearest cell phone tower and note all of the
paralleled cables running up the tower. They are carrying both
transmit and receive signals, in the same frequency band, and they are
all single-shielded cables.


Also, theoretically, you don't want to have too many 90 degree bends
in your cable (as is the case with that adapter). Even though I say
this, I use them where they are convenient and usually everything
works ok, but the theory says you are creating a discontinuity causing
reflections, interference, and possibly reducing the bandwidth of your
cable.

A well-built adapter (an oxymoron in the cable TV business) might be a
better solution than a tight bend in the cable itself. Foamed
dielectric cables are highly prone to migration of the center
conductor. The shielding effectiveness of foil shielded cable can
also be unstable.

All of these houses with built-in cables, installed by electricans
trained to minimize the length of wire used, are going to have future
problems. I would rather have "old-fashioned" RG-59, solid
dielectric, 99% copper braid cable than this new foamed tin-foil crap.