f you go from 2.2G cable to 3 it won't matter.
the older cable is 2200
mhz, not ghz. Does 2200 mhz compared to 3 ghz make a difference?
And, i get the idea about digital meaning either you get it or you don't but i didn't know if it could still affect nuances of the picture quality. And yeah...digital cable doesn't mean squat, it usually is just a "selling", marketing method when electronic manufacturers stick the word DIGITAL on anyhting they sell.
The signal is 95%.
Cable burn-in is a source of much discussion, esp in the audiophile circles. Some think, (me included, i guess), that if you run a cable for xx hours, esp when new or if it hasn't been used in a while, then by some source of sorcery the picture/sound is better because the flow of electrons has been established and is now continual, resulting in improved quality. 90% of you are laughing out loud, i know, but companies make a fortune in the cable industry, as most of you know. The highest mark-up/profit margins in the AV business is cabling, from what i understand.
And thanks for the welcoming.
Any special initiation i need to concern myself with due to my introduction to satellite?
So, is the answer not to worry about it? I'm the kind of guy who will sit around wondering if my picture could be 15% better if i had the new cabling run to my HD setup. It's no fun, believe me, because this mindset extends to all other aspects of day to day life.
I'm having a blast trying to figure out of the 1080i from the box into my 720P set looks better than the 720P signal from the box to my 720P set. You'd think i would stick with the 720P feed to keep from having to downconvert, but the installer said to keep the box at 1080i.
Thanks again,
dave