Dual Shield vs. Quad Shield RG6? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 42 Old 03-28-2004, 10:53 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
bmoore0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
So I'm about to run some wire through the house and I have the question of QS vs DS?

I've got recommendations for both Belden and Canare (which is a DS) and can't find any reason to choose one or the other - seems like QS would in general be better, but then why the recommendations for Canare?

Currently I'd just use this for analog video, but I'd like to future proof it (within reason).

What do I need to know to decide?
bmoore0 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 06:19 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
there are two general rules when purchasing wire and/or cables...

1. buy cable made in the u.s. or canada (if you live in north america)

2. buy name brand cables....belden, canare, commscope.... if you've never heard of the brand name - then don't buy it...

as for dual shield versus quad shield.... the price difference is minimal.... esp if you consider the length of time that the cable will be in the wall.....
get the quad shield... it gives you the higest amount of shielding currently available.....
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #3 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 06:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Fine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quad-shield is one of the best-known, least-understood, least-necessary things around. My local cable company uses a cheap, single-shield cable, and that's even for customers with cable-modem internet service.

Plus, for anything other than RF, RG-59 is adequate; maybe even better. It's certainly thinner, more flexible, and easier to terminate. Keep the RG-6 for RF use. (These are just my opinions, by the way.)

Larry
www.fineelectricco.com
My system (new larger pix!)
Larry Fine is offline  
post #4 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 07:22 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Larry Fine
Quad-shield is one of the best-known, least-understood, least-necessary things around. My local cable company uses a cheap, single-shield cable, and that's even for customers with cable-modem internet service.
of course the cable company is going to use the cheapest thing that they can find..... and that's why many people have picture problems on their cable systems.....

single shield cable...whether RG6 or RG59 with a braid shield is only rated as 95% Shield .... RG6 dual and RG6 quad shield is considered 100% shield..... when you put the cable in the wall today you might not have any interference problems...but what happens 6 months from now when a new radio stain builds a transmitter a mile away from your house?? .... or some other situation beyond your control??

if you are putting a cable in the wall, why not put in a cable with the best shield?

additionally, if you are using coax for a satellite installation... you should definitely use RG6 quad..... RG6 quad is frequency rated up to 2.2 gigahertz... the other cables are not rated that high....

again.... to make yourself future proof as best you can.... install the best cable you can find..... the price difference is minimal when you consider the length of time the cable will be in the wall....
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #5 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 08:11 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by tubeguy44
single shield cable...whether RG6 or RG59 with a braid shield is only rated as 95% Shield .... RG6 dual and RG6 quad shield is considered 100% shield..... when you put the cable in the wall today you might not have any interference problems...but what happens 6 months from now when a new radio stain builds a transmitter a mile away from your house?? .... or some other situation beyond your control??

if you are putting a cable in the wall, why not put in a cable with the best shield?
This is not correct. Quad-shielding gives you less braided shielding than a 95% coverage dual-shield. The most common 60/40 braiding for quad shielding gives you only around 76% coverage.

Take a look at this article:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/shielding.htm

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #6 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 08:56 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by CJO
This is not correct. Quad-shielding gives you less braided shielding than a 95% coverage dual-shield. The most common 60/40 braiding for quad shielding gives you only around 76% coverage.

Take a look at this article:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/shielding.htm

CJ
the article is totally wrong about the shielding of RG6 quad....

in one paragraph it states:

Foil offers the obvious advantage of complete coverage; it is a very easy matter to apply foil to a cable in such a way as to cover every last bit of the dielectric

and then furthur on down it states:

Quad-shield has two layers of braid, but these are ordinarily only 40% and 60% coverage braids (Belden 7916A, for example), yielding a net coverage of 76%

the one fact that the article conviently overlooks is that a quad shield RG6 uses FOUR shields.... there are two braids and two foil shields - foil shields that provide COMPLETE COVERAGE (as stated above)...

so...your two braids provide 76% shield and the two foil shields each provide 100% shield....

you get the benefits of braided shield for grounding purposes and the more complete shielding of TWO 100% foil shields!!!!

it's really amazing that this RG6 quad cable which the article states is a "poor" cable is the industry standard when it comes to satellite installations and in-house cable runs....

blue jeans is just trying to sell their own "precision" cable..... big surprise!

(edited for spelling)
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #7 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:01 AM
 
tvtech1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
RG6 quad is frequency rated up to 2.2 gigahertz... the other cables are not rated that high....
Except for the commonly available, in multiple colours, 3GHz 1505A.
tvtech1 is offline  
post #8 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:05 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
However, also according to the article "The effectiveness of shields in intercepting noise varies with frequency, and here too, braid and foil complement each other. Braid is generally more effective at lower frequencies, while foil is more effective at higher frequencies."

They also have independent testing from Belden (who sells both quad and dual shield cable) that this is correct.

I normally would agree with you about trusting what a vendor writes. However, bluejeans cable uses commonly available manufacturers for their raw cable and are open to who they use. They also allow you to choose different manufacturers for some of their cables. I think that if there were a benefit of using quad-shielded cable over dual-shield, that they would offer that either as an option or as their only cable.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #9 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:11 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by tvtech1
Except for the commonly available, in multiple colours, 3GHz 1505A.
you are correct sir!

i have not seen that particular cable locally...... how much does the Belden 1505A cost per 1000 ft spool??
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #10 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:14 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
$207.77 plus shipping at markertek.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #11 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
KurtBJC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
1505A can usually be had from a distributor for around $200.00 per thousand. Belden also sweep tests some others out to 3 GHz, including 1694A (RG-6 version of the 1505A design) and 1855A (miniature version of same). 1694A is available in ten colors; I'm not sure offhand about 1855A but think it is also. There's not much price difference between the sizes--maybe 2 cents/ft. If you're looking for a spool, I'd suggest checking with a local distributor; you can look them up at Belden's site. 1505A and 1694A are also available in 500 foot spools but only in black.
KurtBJC is offline  
post #12 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:17 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by CJO
However, also according to the article "The effectiveness of shields in intercepting noise varies with frequency, and here too, braid and foil complement each other. Braid is generally more effective at lower frequencies, while foil is more effective at higher frequencies."

They also have independent testing from Belden (who sells both quad and dual shield cable) that this is correct.

I normally would agree with you about trusting what a vendor writes. However, bluejeans cable uses commonly available manufacturers for their raw cable and are open to who they use. They also allow you to choose different manufacturers for some of their cables. I think that if there were a benefit of using quad-shielded cable over dual-shield, that they would offer that either as an option or as their only cable.

CJ
i'm still interested to see how a single foil shield and one braid can be more effective at shielding than two foil shields and one or even two braids....

and the other nagging question.... why does the entire industry spec quad shield if this article is true???

why does belden (and the other companies) make a more costly cable (quad) if there were no benefits over a lower cost cable (dual)???
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #13 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:19 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by KurtBJC
1505A can usually be had from a distributor for around $200.00 per thousand. Belden also sweep tests some others out to 3 GHz, including 1694A (RG-6 version of the 1505A design) and 1855A (miniature version of same). 1694A is available in ten colors; I'm not sure offhand about 1855A but think it is also. There's not much price difference between the sizes--maybe 2 cents/ft. If you're looking for a spool, I'd suggest checking with a local distributor; you can look them up at Belden's site. 1505A and 1694A are also available in 500 foot spools but only in black.
about $200 per thousand......

that is obviously why normal RG6 quad sells so much better.... it usually sells for less than $100 per thousand.... and is much more available at many local outlets...
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #14 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:20 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
From what I understand, 95% coverage dual-shielded cable is actually more expensive to make than 60/40% quad shield. Also, it is very difficult to get beyond the 60/40 with quad shield and still have a cable that isn't too stiff or too hard to terminate. However, these are just things I have read somewhere and I don't have anything to back me up on that.

I wish that there was an independant audio/video magazine that would test some of these things out (and, while they were at it, do a double-blind test on speaker cables)!

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #15 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 377
I think the answer to your question, bmoore0, lies in your asking more questions of yourself as to what you want to specifically do and what your realistic future plans are. For example, if you're looking to not only add cable for your video but perhaps looking to also want to create a whole house wiring scheme that includes computer networking, audio, telephone, etc., then you might want to consider cable bundling schemes. Better to make one single run rather than several, no? Might also increase the resale value of your home! Further, since you'll likely be running it in-wall, consideration to specifications for cable spec'd for in-wall installation is a given as is things not often thought about such as flexibility, durability with regards to abrasion resistance, etc. You may want to ponder this a bit more and once you firmly decide what your goals are, contact Canare, Belden, and others directly and ask to speak to an applications person to provide you with a list of suitable products. Color coding of cables is a pretty good idea and certainly will simplify matters when the time comes that you're wondering just where does that wire go?
As to why some people get on the Canare kick? Who knows? It's kind of like a Ford/Chevy thing in many ways.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #16 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 09:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
KurtBJC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by tubeguy44
i'm still interested to see how a single foil shield and one braid can be more effective at shielding than two foil shields and one or even two braids....

and the other nagging question.... why does the entire industry spec quad shield if this article is true???

why does belden (and the other companies) make a more costly cable (quad) if there were no benefits over a lower cost cable (dual)???
Well, as you now can see, of course, the 95% braid/foil combination is actually more expensive. And to my knowledge, quad shield isn't very widely used in the broadcast industry. It's more common in CATV distribution because of its lower cost. The broadcast industry uses the precision video cables mostly because most work in post production is now done in SDI, which requires really tight impedance tolerance and wide bandwidth.

Two foil shields, in isolation, would be more effective than one. But 100% coverage from a foil shield, by itself, doesn't equate to 100% shield effectiveness. Conductivity to ground is really important, and braid coverage is important, so that 76% coverage (what you get from laying 60% down, and then covering 40% of the uncovered area with a second, 40% braid) in aluminum isn't as good as 95% in copper.

Belden's copper-centered quad shield, 7916A, is designed for DBS antenna applications. The idea is to have a reasonably well-shielded cable, at reasonable cost; it differs from conventional quad shield mostly in having a solid copper center conductor. Usually the reason for going to solid copper would be to support lower frequencies (baseband video), but in this case it's probably because of the use of DC in a DBS antenna; the less resistance in the line, the better. But the 1694A is better in every respect other than price. In most DBS applications, though, the two should perform the same, which is why the cheaper 7916A is made.
KurtBJC is offline  
post #17 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 10:05 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Chu Gai
IFor example, if you're looking to not only add cable for your video but perhaps looking to also want to create a whole house wiring scheme that includes computer networking, audio, telephone, etc., then you might want to consider cable bundling schemes. Better to make one single run rather than several, no?
Running bundled cable, IMO, is much harder than doing individual runs. The cable is much less flexible and the bend radii depends on the thickness of the whole bundle, not of individual wires.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #18 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 10:16 AM
Member
 
EmDub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Layton, Utah (USA)
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
When people wire up their entire house (in-wall during construction), do they actually use 1694A throughout? Just curious if people use it mainly for short runs or for entire house projects.

Michael
EmDub is offline  
post #19 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 10:30 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
It isn't that much more than most other cable. For me, it is just easier to use all the same cable rather than having to buy a couple kinds of different ones; especially since most cable isn't available unless you buy a spool.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #20 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 10:47 AM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by CJO
Running bundled cable, IMO, is much harder than doing individual runs. The cable is much less flexible and the bend radii depends on the thickness of the whole bundle, not of individual wires.

CJ
the installers that pull wire for a living actually prefer the whole-house cable that contains two RG6 quad cables and two cat5e cables in one overall jacket.... they pull one run of this to every room in the house home-runned to a central location (usually in the basement)....

it is much faster than separate runs.... which results in a lower labor cost....
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #21 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 12:30 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
bmoore0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Chu Gai...

I am going to be running CAT5e (or 6) through out as well, interestingly enough I've got the same question about CATx cables - even among CAT5e or CAT6 there's a wide range of them to choose from.

The future proofing is the hard part - I can see GigE in the near future, but I don't know that SDI is ever a consumer application. I could see the COAX used for Satellite, OTA HDTV runs, Cable, plain vanilla RF channel 3 stuff... And maybe even using the coax for network traffic some day.

I thought about the single cable run, but not only is it pricey, if one of the cables in a run is bad, I have to re-run the whole thing (or just run a new one). In any case, I still would have to figure out which bundled cable I want then...:p
bmoore0 is offline  
post #22 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 12:38 PM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by tubeguy44
the installers that pull wire for a living actually prefer the whole-house cable that contains two RG6 quad cables and two cat5e cables in one overall jacket.... they pull one run of this to every room in the house home-runned to a central location (usually in the basement)....

it is much faster than separate runs.... which results in a lower labor cost....
It's the exact opposite in this area and with most of the large install guys I've talked to. Most of them do $100k+ systems and don't have the flexibility with the single cable system. Two RG6 and two CAT5 cables aren't nearly enough to most rooms and where they are enough, they wouldn't all be going to the same place anyway. To each his own I guess.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
post #23 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 12:52 PM
 
tubeguy44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by CJO
It's the exact opposite in this area and with most of the large install guys I've talked to. Most of them do $100k+ systems and don't have the flexibility with the single cable system. Two RG6 and two CAT5 cables aren't nearly enough to most rooms and where they are enough, they wouldn't all be going to the same place anyway. To each his own I guess.

CJ
i should have mentioned that this is generally for the whole house..... during new home construction..... with people that want to have tv, phone, and computer connections in every room....

doing a dedicated home theatre or complex audio distribution system, i agree with your assertion...
tubeguy44 is offline  
post #24 of 42 Old 03-29-2004, 11:11 PM
Member
 
bunchman132's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I prefer to run phone, cable, and network as seperate cables to bedrooms etc. I reserve Structured runs for special areas and any main TV or media room location.
bunchman132 is offline  
post #25 of 42 Old 03-30-2004, 04:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 377
bmoore0
Well you certainly need to give this matter a bit of thought and if I may, perchance you're agonizing too much over minutae. While there are different flavors in the Category wirings, as there are in 75 ohm coax, you need to better define your requirements which should allow you to make a choice much easier. For example, do you really need Cat 6 for your home? After all, computers spend far greater time waiting for us than we do for them. Also, most people don't live in the same house forever so planning too long term may not be the most prudent or cost effective thing to do. Please avail yourself of the toll free numbers and speak to the companies directly.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is online now  
post #26 of 42 Old 03-30-2004, 07:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Larry Fine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,953
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm not a big fan of all-in-one-cables because I generally don't want all of the connections in one place in a room. For example, in a bedroom, I like the phone near the bed, but the coax across the room. Not every room needs everything.

I have a customer (electrical) who had some co-workers of his low-voltage-wire his house (older house - gutted ane rewired as a new house). They used "structure cabling" all around, and can barely fit the cables into the panel. What a mess!

Larry
www.fineelectricco.com
My system (new larger pix!)
Larry Fine is offline  
post #27 of 42 Old 03-30-2004, 04:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill Lummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,024
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with Tubeguy on this. Belden's own technical papers define their foil/braid/foil shield technology as the best EMI shielding they have. In their tests it was about 12x more effective than braid alone.

I also don't believe you can extrapolate their results to other companies.

When I get time I'll sniff around for more data.
Bill Lummus is offline  
post #28 of 42 Old 03-30-2004, 05:45 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
bmoore0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 99
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
foil/braid/foil is what shielding? QS? I thought that would be braid/foil/braid/foil?
bmoore0 is offline  
post #29 of 42 Old 03-30-2004, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill Lummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,024
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The foil/braid/foil is the most shielding that they tested. They sell quad shielded cable and it's hard for me to imagine that adding another braid will degrade the shielding effectiveness. I could be wrong, though.

The also mention that the foil/braid/foil cable is the most expensive of the cables they tested.
Bill Lummus is offline  
post #30 of 42 Old 03-31-2004, 05:14 AM
CJO
AVS Special Member
 
CJO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,940
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The foil/braid/foil is triple shielding. They promote the quad shield as being more robust than the other types of shielding, they do not say that it does a better job at shielding EMI. Take a look at the belden website for more information.

CJ

coneilliv at aol dot com

The Dark Knight Theater
(a bunch of good reference links and material in first 15 posts)
CJO is offline  
Closed Thread Tweaks and Do-It-Yourself

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off