Just got TWC digital cable.Got about an 80' run of RG-59 to get to the cable box.Most channels good, but the locals and a few in the 30s have some seriously bad pixelation going on.I know RG-6 is the better stuff, but I really don't think that would solve the problem for this length. Should I look into an RF amplifier? Any recommendations?
8/12/2006 6:59:04 PM
why is it such a long distance?
8/12/2006 7:27:15 PM
I bet RG6 would solve your problem. for digital cable and/or satellite, RG6 is recommended, especially on long runs.
8/12/2006 7:49:28 PM
It's a long distance because it's a very old house with only two coax jacks, and we had to run it around the whole house.Well, I guess I'll try the RG6. It's going to cost me both ways; I hope this is the correct fix.Thanks for the responses.
8/13/2006 12:56:01 AM
haha RG-59 sucks even at short distances.. first run RG-6 then if you still have signal issues then invest in an inline amplifier and attach that to the demarc point. an amplifier on an 80' RG59 run won't do much at all..may save you a little money if you're running the line yourself: http://www.cablestogo.com/product_list.asp?cat%5Fid=304[Edited on August 13, 2006 at 3:17 AM. Reason : ]
8/13/2006 3:15:47 AM
RG6 plus an amplifier is a good idea. Hell, on digital cable I'd recommend an in-line amp anyways. Me and smoothcrim both had to use that to solve problems with the digital sound on HD channels.
8/13/2006 11:46:38 AM
What kind of inline amp did you use?
8/13/2006 5:25:14 PM
Well, wrong on the RG-6. In fact, the RG-59 looked just a little better! Gonna try an amp, I guess.
8/13/2006 8:37:58 PM
did you use quad-shield RG-6??RG59 is better for lower frequencies.. but RG6 supports more bandwidth, is a must for digital cable and satellite.. It is shielded better for lower noise induction and doesn't attenuate the signal as quick as RG59
8/14/2006 12:57:20 AM
8/16/2006 3:27:08 PM