RG6 or RG6 Quad for rooftop antenna.

You will not realize any benefit from using the quad-shielded cable. Normal RG6 will do the job just fine.

+1

+2

The only difference between quad, tri, and standard is the shielding.

The main purpose of quad-shielded cable is to prevent "re-radiation" of signals in cable TV applications. Any good RG-6 tri-shield will prevent ingress (signals leaking into the cable), and genarally provide slightly less signal loss compared to quad shield.

What ever is available. Just remember that when making your cables - the connectors are NOT interchangable, as a rule.

Either is fine. For a 30' run, I'd go with less expensive.

I'm not familiar with interchangeable connectors. The only ones I've seen are for RG-6 or RG-6QS.

use standard rg-6....quad or tri shielding is of no benefit unless u are in an extremely high rf environment, very near many fm/tv transmitters, like in downtown chicago...

and loss per foot is identical....more shielding has no effect on loss...

standard rg-6 connectors will probably work but it'll be a very tight fit and for sure u'll have to peel away all the outer shield layers of foil and braid, which is a pain....

just use the standard rg-6....

Many manufacturers still make only cable-specific fittings, but there are a few that also make universal fittings that can be used on standard, tri, or quad-shield cable. The PCT DRS6 can be used on standard or tri-shield cable, while their DRS6Q is for quad. They also have a universal one. SuperLok has one for each cable, but are soon coming out with a universal one.

Thanks for the info.

I have seen loss specs and my recollection is that RG6 quad shield has a few db less loss per 100 feet over RG6. If you have a long run in a challenging environment it could make a difference. If you have a short run of cable or are not in a difficult OTA environment it should make no difference.

Rick R

I've seen some QS with higher loss than "standard", and some standard with lower loss than QS. The only way to have any confidence is to review the tech data by the manufacturer. As an example, Belden 1152A QS is 8.2dB@1GHz, Belden 1189A QS is 6.5dB@1GHz.

As I'm prone to say, "all general statements are false, including this one".

Here's my experience with quad shield:

It's a royal pain in the ass for OTA. I'm at a fringe-to-deep fringe at 60 mi with hills and ridges between me and anything I want to watch. So, everything I use I went all-out. CM 4228 antenna, pre-amp, rotator, etc.

Here's where the quad shield really sucks: the wire is so stiff that if it snag on anything around the rotator (I have a U-bolt that holds a thrust bearing above the rotator) you'll have to go up the ladder and rescue it, or eventually the balun will pull out. I had to put some tension on the wire to keep it from snagging on the U-bolt ends during windstorms. When it snags, it stays stuck in the shape of that snag, and it is hard to straighten out, meaning it will snag more easily in the future.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you avoid quad shield unless you have a clear need for it.

+1

I actually used RG11 which has a few less db per 100' than RG6 quad shield. RG11 is really a pain as it is 1/2 " diameter and it really doesn't want to bend. However in my challenging environment it made the difference in getting a few more channels.

I have since moved. My new location is 2 miles from my old location and I am still in a challenging environment. (I am directly behind a 2700' peak between me and Mt Wilson.) However the new house has RG6 quad shield wired to most rooms in the house. Actually most rooms have a connector box with two RG6 quad shield cables and a cat 5 cable. I invested in a RG6Q crimper and connectors to make the jobs easier.

Rick R

Then don't be so general.

There's an easy answer to this one. 1152a is plenum-rated cable. If you put cable inside an airway or duct (a "plenum") you need to use plenum-rated cable. The insulation used in these cables doesn't emit poisinous gasses if/when it burns. This insulation results in a cable with higher loss than "regular" RG-6 (1189a.)

Also, take about a dB off those numbers, because OTA channel 51 is around 700 MHz, not 1 GHz. And remember, that's for 100 feet of the stuff. YMMV.

Were you using a pre-amp?

I've always been curious whether RG11 helped when a pre-amp is involved.

I use quad-shielded RG-6 for my 43' run of cable from the attic to the TV. I've used standard RG-6 and quad-shielded cable, and RG-59 (). Here's my take.

Here's the smoking gun: I run it without fear of interference getting into it...such as the 20,000 watt FM blaster 3 miles to my southeast, a 50 kilowatter 10 miles to my west, and a 4,5 kw station 5 miles to my northwest, blinking towers all in view of my home. That has clearly helped me.

Also, 1 or 2 db may not seem like much, but every connector slapped on is a 1 db loss. And hey, for nearly the same price to ensure a great signal...it's worth it. Tonight, with my attic antenna, I'm watching CBS stations 140 miles away, and a PBS station 90 miles away, the latter on UHF that I can get *without* tropo. Yes, it fades in and out during the day, but for an attic antenna and the signal slightly blocked by an adjacent townhome, with the transmitter of 100 kilowatts...I'd say I'm doing good with my ChannelMaster 4228, end to end on quad shielded RG-6 from Home Depot 5 years ago.

I used standard RG-6 connectors on quad shield. They were a snug fit, but they worked fine. Now, if you need the cable to flex well, then standard RG-6 should be the way to go. But if it's lay it once and forget it...use quad shielded RG-6. It may be less flexible, but it's sturdier and it's more durable. There's reasons why D* and E* contractors use it versus standard RG-6. Think about it.

If you use a rotor...if you are concerned about the cable getting caught, then I'd go with standard RG-6 for that "jumper" cable.

I know. I'll be yelled at by saying "it isn't worth it" or "that's silly". But every dB is worth it, even in urban areas, for signal "pad", and knowing it's going to take a lot of interference to penetrate that cable. RG-11 is too bulky for me, and has little benefit given the frequencies my receiving stations broadcast on, and a 30' run won't bring meaningful improvement to me versus RG-6 QS.

Having said that...for the cream of the crop...go with Belden, and get the tri-shield. That stuff is great. And of course, the best dual shield from Belden can beat quad-shield due to how well they make it. Belden is pure copper, while the others are usually a mix of steel, with a thin copper clad outside layer.

First off, there should be no difference in loss between quad shield cable and other cables. Assuming that the cables have the same construction (insulation thickness, center conductor diameter, etc.) and have 100% shield coverage (usually a foil wrapping) it doesn't make any difference how many shields you put around a cable. You are correct, an extra shield will help stop ingress from other RF sources, and more shields will make the cable "stronger" if you have to pull it, but that's about it.

The article in the link is written by someone who wants to be an expert, but isn't. Pure copper is soft. Steel is hard. If the center conductor is used as one of the connector contacts (and not encased by a "pin") then it must be stiff enough to not bend during mating. There are also metallurgical processes that can be used to stiffen copper somewhat.

Skin effect happens regardless of whether a solid conductor is copper, steel, or copper-clad. If the frequency is high enough and the cladding thick enough, there might be very little signal in the steel portion of a conductor. If the cable needs to carry a lot of low frequency current (DC or 50/60 cycle) over long distances, then copper cable would be better.

Thanks, hphase. I've been leery of how you could get an extra db or so as all these manufacturers calim, but I figured they couldn't all have been misleading me. This makes perfect sense.

So, having said that, I still stand by my original argument to use it. You never know what interference sources are out there, and dealing with it (as I have) is a pain. Since I switched to quad-shield...no problems. As long as you have 3 good layers on there like Belden, or 4 like quad-shield, you can concentrate on getting the strongest signal, rather than trying to knock down interference.

I edited my post above to remove erroneous information.

Belden is a manufacturer. They make Standard (Dual), Tri, and Quad-shield cable, as does Times Fiber and CommScope.

Times Fiber also makes a Standard (Dual-shield) cable with 90% braid coverage (typical braid coverage for Standard cable, regardless of manufacturer, is 60%).

True, I was just using Belden as an exmaple. However, I didn't know that about Times Fiber. Interesting.

I used a Winegard 8200 antenna, a Winegard 8275 preamp, and the RG11. Every little bit helped.

Rick R

I might have to try that. I have a 50' run from the mast to the house.