Extreme length run. What coax? (1 Viewer)

Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

sunspot

Thread Starter
Active SatelliteGuys Member
Apr 21, 2004
23
0
Centreville, Alabama
Due to tree growth, I will have to move my antenna 180-200 feet from my receiver. What co-ax cable would have the least loss? Does swept tested at 3 GHz or 4.5 GHz make a difference? During research on forums, it seems the tri-shield is a bit more preferred over the quad.

What do you guy’s think?
Belden
1694A RG-6/U 4.5 GHz 95% tinned copper braid
7915A Duobond Plus (tri-shield) Aluminum/Bonded Foil w/Shorting Fold 3 GHz 80% Aluminum braid
7916A Duobond IV (quad-shield) Tape/Braid/Tape/Braid 60/40% Aluminum braid 3 GHz


Receiver VIP622
VIP722k to be added.
Antenna 1000.2
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

whatchel1

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 30, 2006
9,099
48
Great High Plains
1st one

Due to tree growth, I will have to move my antenna 180-200 feet from my receiver. What co-ax cable would have the least loss? Does swept tested at 3 GHz or 4.5 GHz make a difference? During research on forums, it seems the tri-shield is a bit more preferred over the quad.

What do you guy’s think?
Belden
1694A RG-6/U 4.5 GHz 95% tinned copper braid
7915A Duobond Plus (tri-shield) Aluminum/Bonded Foil w/Shorting Fold 3 GHz 80% Aluminum braid
7916A Duobond IV (quad-shield) Tape/Braid/Tape/Braid 60/40% Aluminum braid 3 GHz


Receiver VIP622
VIP722k to be added.
Antenna 1000.2

The 1st one will work fine. IN fact any of these will work but the tri & quad shields will be the hardest ones to work with.
 

whatchel1

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 30, 2006
9,099
48
Great High Plains
Looked closer

The 1st one will work fine. IN fact any of these will work but the tri & quad shields will be the hardest ones to work with.

After saying the above I looked up Belden RG-6 U and came up with a different # for you. I would suggest you consider 5339B5 or 1829A. These are also designed for your application and most likely less expensive.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,739
2,797
Salem, OR
The 1694A would do just fine. We use it to carry uncompressed HD-SDI up to ~300'
The bandwidth requirements of satellite are many times higher than those of a single uncompressed HD video stream.

Further, SDI doesn't have nearly the current requirements that are necessary in a satellite TV setup. The ampacity is what usually causes the problems with long RG6 runs as opposed to signal loss.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,016
16,975
Northern VA
It's how overboard do you want to go. The tri & quad shielding, for example, is really only for where you may have enough interference to degrade your signal. Generally not needed. Some swear by it. I daresay all swear at it, the first time they use it.

I've used copper coated center for average household runs, no problems. I'd use solid for anything approaching to exceeding 100'. At around 200' I'd bite the bullet and go with RG-11. But that's just me. Certainly many, many people here have more experience than I and perhaps better advice.

I also greatly prefer compression to crimping. And using high quality connectors. And don't forget drip loops.

The higher swept may help future proof for coming developments, or maintain a better signal as environmental degradation kicks in, years down the road.
 

harshness

SatelliteGuys Master
May 5, 2007
16,739
2,797
Salem, OR
I've been buying whatever Lowes happens to be selling (Coleman Cable?) because it is solid core and it comes in pull boxes (reels suck). It may not seem to be a great value, but it doesn't incur shipping costs that can turn buying on the Internet into not such a great deal.
 

navychop

Member of the Month - July 2014!
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 20, 2005
52,016
16,975
Northern VA
I must add, the RG-6 I bought at HD turned out to be higher quality than the stuff I bought at a local electrical supply house. Ended up tossing a lot of LONG cable runs with that junk. Should have known, just from the appearance. Future purchases will be thru the mail, known quantities.
 

sunspot

Thread Starter
Active SatelliteGuys Member
Apr 21, 2004
23
0
Centreville, Alabama
I also greatly prefer compression to crimping. And using high quality connectors. And don't forget drip loops.
Thanks, I’ve been doing that for years but reminders are always welcome.

I don’t mind in the least working with quad cable. I do live in a very rural location but you never know how much interference is in the area.

I’ve never worked with RG11. I would need new tools and fittings. I may have to bite the bullet if I can’t use RG6.

Has anyone here ever done a 200’ satellite install?

The ampacity is what usually causes the problems with long RG6 runs as opposed to signal loss.
Do you mean having enough voltage at the LNB? I'm trying to learn:D.
 

peano

SatelliteGuys Pro
Aug 6, 2004
849
0
You don't need quad or triple shield or RG11 for your long run. Get the 1694A and use quality compression fittings like Snap N Seal. It will work. Guaranteed.
 

KKlare

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 18, 2003
2,397
13
Los Alamos, NM
I think the reason to use RG-11 on very long runs is the lower DC resistance especially for a DPP-44.
If you have 3 or more receivers, you might want to run 3 satellite signals to a DPP-44 nearer receivers.
Consider that the dielectric may be solid poly, whereas RG-6 is foam for lower HF attenuation.
Consider that the stranded, tinned center conductor must be adapted to the RG-6 size wire spec.
Consider it is a lot heavier and harder to bend and may not be suitable without support/burial.
Based on 40-year-ago memories. But definitely solid copper not plated steel unless stretched.
-Ken
 

tkwasny

SatelliteGuys Family
Mar 14, 2008
36
0
It's how overboard do you want to go. The tri & quad shielding, for example, is really only for where you may have enough interference to degrade your signal. Generally not needed. Some swear by it. I daresay all swear at it, the first time they use it.

I've used copper coated center for average household runs, no problems. I'd use solid for anything approaching to exceeding 100'. At around 200' I'd bite the bullet and go with RG-11. But that's just me. Certainly many, many people here have more experience than I and perhaps better advice.

I also greatly prefer compression to crimping. And using high quality connectors. And don't forget drip loops.

The higher swept may help future proof for coming developments, or maintain a better signal as environmental degradation kicks in, years down the road.
I'm using RG-11 for my UHF run of 130'. Amplified up at the antenna and then again to distribute in the house being sure not to amplify much above the collective cable run losses. Amplification does so to noise as well as signal. RG6 would have forced me to amplify higher gain, more noise also amplified.

How much more important it is at Sat freqs. and those SNRs.
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

rglore

Pub Member / Supporter
Pub Member / Supporter
Mar 12, 2006
1,653
94
Louisville
If it doesn't work well with one receiver, should work better with two receivers powering the LNBs so try that first.
 

whatchel1

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 30, 2006
9,099
48
Great High Plains
RG-11 is over kill for the distance he's running. It's also to large to go into the fittings on LNB's & switches. So it means you will spread them out or have to use adapters. I glad he got the 1694A it is all he needs.
 

MikeInAlaska

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jul 31, 2009
189
4
Wasilla, AK
RG11 is just too pricey for good tooling and cable. I ran about 1000 feet of 1694A through my house on a remodel a couple years ago. I can literally pipe the satellite from my neighbors yard, up to my roof, back down (for no reason) adding another senseless 100 feet and have zero problems getting signal. 1694A is GREAT stuff. I use all Canare connectors and tooling which was spendy up front but has been super nice to own since for making little connectors. Here is a mountain of 1694A:
cabinet2.jpg
 
Register Today to see less ads! It's Free!

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top