High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

short lengths of rg11

ppauper
06-12-2007, 08:37 AM
is there anywhere on the web selling shorter lengths of rg11 (like 25 ft say) with connectors ?

DwnGoesFrazier
06-14-2007, 01:00 AM
stop one of your local cable guys and ask him to cut you the desired length. Of course you have to tip him/her. :D

Mark M
06-14-2007, 08:40 AM
RG-11 is meant to be used as a plant feed or for very long runs. On a length of 25' there is no gains by using RG-11 over RG-6. It is going to be a lot less flexible and if you plan on plugging it directly into the TV, you would have to leave enough room to allow the cable not to kink up.

ppauper
09-06-2007, 08:55 AM
this guy on ebay made some for me:
they're about twice as thick as quad rg6 and the ends are huge.
He charged $2 per end for the connector plus labor plus the cost of the wire.
And yes, I plugged it directly into the TV.

It has made a small but noticeable difference:
I'm using a CM4228 indoors (5th floor of a highrise) trying to get deep fring from 120 miles away
The set-up is
CM4228
-> balun
-> 2ft of RG11
-> low noise (<1dB) amp
-> 8ft of RG11
-> TV

I can get one of the fringe stations 80% of the time now instead of 25%

Agreed that for 99.999% of the people, this is probably a waste of time,
but I'm one of the few for whom it does make a difference.

Next I need a better balun....

billinprinceto
09-06-2007, 09:53 AM
. . . for 99.999% of the people, this is probably a waste of time, but I'm one of the few for whom it does make a difference.

Sorry to say, but it's all in your mind.

The difference between RG6 and RG11 for the lengths being discussed are totally insignificant.
RG6 attenuation: 25' - 1.8dB; 10' - 0.75dB
RG11 attenuation: 25' - 1.4dB; 10' - 0.56dB
So the "improvement over 25' might be 0.4dB and over 10' might be 0.2dB. There is not a tuner or receiver on the market that can discriminate signal differences of this magnitude. In fact, quality and attachment of connectors is typically much more significant than cable attenuation in the grand scheme of things.

ppauper
09-07-2007, 07:49 AM
Sorry to say, but it's all in your mind..
and yet there is a noticeable difference

billinprinceto
09-07-2007, 10:14 AM
and yet there is a noticeable difference

Nope, there can't be.

Anyone who claims to see a noticible difference in the stated examples is either kidding themselves or have also replaced other elements in the system.

Hey, if it make you feel good to spend extra $$$ and have huge clunky cables hanging on your equipment, go ahead. Oh, and, by the way, don't forget to get all of your other cables from Monster.

billinprinceto
09-08-2007, 10:13 AM
You listed your setup as:


I'm using a CM4228 indoors (5th floor of a highrise) trying to get deep fring from 120 miles away
The set-up is
CM4228
-> balun
-> 2ft of RG11
-> low noise (<1dB) amp
-> 8ft of RG11
-> TV
Next I need a better balun....

The truth is, what you need to do next is eliminate the LNA.

An amplifier only serves one purpose in a transmission system, and that is to boost the signal to allow extension of length of the system; in doing so, it always introduces additional noise and distortion (crossmod, intermod, triplebeat, etc., in the case of television) and eventually, reaches a limit at which the signal is no longer useful. In-home use of LNAs is only practical when the goal is to extend the system through high loss components such as splitters or long lengths of coax (say 75'-100' or more).

In your case, where the only thing between the LNA and the TV is a short length of coax with maximum attenuation at 1.0gHz of 0.75dB (and typical attenuation at VHF of 0.25dB), you are introducing more noise and distortion with the amplifier than you are compensating for in cable losses, so the result will definately be a worse signal reaching your TV.

If you "think" you can perceive the difference between RG6 and RG11 in this setup, try pulling the LNA, and I guarantee you will perceive an even greater improvement.

ppauper
09-29-2007, 08:40 AM
>> The truth is, what you need to do next is eliminate the LNA.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here.
I have some strong local stations,
some medium range stations (about 50 miles away)
and some distant stations (about 100+miles away).

With the strong local stations:
i)obviously there is no discernible difference between the RG6 and RG11
ii) the LNA makes the signal slightly less clear

With the distant stations, the signal is very weak and can only be pulled in part of the time.
Without the LNA, I can only get those distant stations very infreqently. There's a noticeable improvement on these stations when the LNA is used.
It is with those distant stations that there is a noticeable improvement between RG6 and RG11. Improvement in the sense that I can get those stations a much higher percent of the time.

FWIW, I've just made another small but noticable improvement as I've found a male-to-male connector (so basically a cable of zero length) allowing me to attach the balun directly (using the male-to-male connector) to the LNA. That cuts out the 2 feet of RG11 between the balun and the LNA

I suspect the noise figure on the LNA is substantially less than that on my TV:
if the two were comparable, I agree that removing the LNA would make sense even for the distant stations

billinprinceto
09-29-2007, 09:43 PM
What can I say?

Your technical expertise in this area is obviously abundant, and your visual perception is acute. You seem to know exactly what your doing, so . . . . .

ppauper
10-01-2007, 08:57 AM
can't we all just get along ?
I apologize if my experience doesn't match what you expect

gcd0865
01-03-2008, 03:38 PM
Ppauper, my experience with RG-11 coax is similar to yours - it has provided a small, but noticeable difference over RG-6 in my signal strength over 35-40 foot coax length. The addition of RG-11 to my cable tv wiring improved the distribution of my cable signals throughout my house so I no longer needed a distribution amp.

I have a similar OTA antenna setup as yours (but without the amp), as I am also receiving distant UHF signals, but wth RG-6 currently from the antenna. Since I have some RG-11 cable and end connectors (and got them for free), I'm thinking of upgrading the line to the antenna from RG-6 to RG-11 to see if it slightly improves as well. It is a little more cumbersome to work with, but once installed, I'll never see it or touch it anyway.

I'm curious about what kind of amp you have, with the <1db noise figure? Sounds very interesting (perhaps better than the often-touted CM7777?). Saw a posting somewhere about a European low-noise amp that someone was going to try, but can't find that post anymore.

Regarding Billinprinceto's previous post that "An amplifier only serves one purpose in a transmission system, and that is to boost the signal to allow extension of length of the system...", I understand that this is generally true (including the introduction of noise into the system), and that many people who use an amplifier do not need one. However, I'm also wondering whether an amplifier (of sufficiently low noise) might also be useful for overcoming what seems to be relatively high signal strength thresholds of some HD OTA tuners for receiving distant stations? Seems that a number of people are reporting that some digital OTA tuners require higher signal strength than others to lock the signal. Just wondering...