What cable would you recommend to run, oh say 40 feet, in a new house to connect the computer located in the office and the plasma TV located in the Family Room? VGA, DVI, HDMI, etc.? I am trying to get everything pre-wired. Thanks.
Cable to Hook Computer and TV
- Thread starter benjamming
- Start date
- Status
Well that depends what outputs your computer has on it, and make sure it can support two monitors at once.
Most plasmas have dvi, as do most computers. I'd use that.
Most plasmas have dvi, as do most computers. I'd use that.
I am concerned with the cable length and signal integrity.
I think that long a run may be difficult. VGA is older and might be able to pull it off without repeaters if you use a good enough cable. I know the old serial data runs could handle up to 100 ft, but the newer protocols have been getting shorter and shorter max run specs.
But who knows? Ask your plasma dealer, as they are probably now seeing more of this than most of us.
But who knows? Ask your plasma dealer, as they are probably now seeing more of this than most of us.
VGA uses 75-ohm coax so you could make a long VGA cable with RG59 or RG6 CCTV coax.
You can also do the same with component video. I'm not 100% that you need CCTV coax--I've seen component video cables made with plain old RG6 CATV coax.
The difference is that CATV coax has an aluminum shield with a copper coated steel center conductor. CCTV coax is all copper.
You can also do the same with component video. I'm not 100% that you need CCTV coax--I've seen component video cables made with plain old RG6 CATV coax.
The difference is that CATV coax has an aluminum shield with a copper coated steel center conductor. CCTV coax is all copper.
No, we are not using this computer as a home entertainment center. I can see me wanting to use it in the family room from time to time.
We came up with 60' of cable needed. So, we are ordering 75' roll since they come in 50' and 75'.
We came up with 60' of cable needed. So, we are ordering 75' roll since they come in 50' and 75'.
If you're looking for HD-type quality, you won't achieve that with coax cable. You'll need to step up to HDMI, which is more expensive, too.
http://www.pacificcable.com/HDMI_Tutorial.htm
http://www.pacificcable.com/HDMI_Tutorial.htm
Thanks.
So, what cable do I need from the satellite to each of the receivers and from the receivers to each TV since some TVs will be sharing receivers from other rooms?
So, what cable do I need from the satellite to each of the receivers and from the receivers to each TV since some TVs will be sharing receivers from other rooms?
RG6QS is perfectly fine for the dish drop to the receivers. You'll only need an inline amp on the drop (which will be self powered) if any single run approximates 100 feet. If you have to amp it, place it as far upstream as possible within the loss rates of the distribution structure.
The video out to the monitor is a bit different and there cable type and length become more important. Unless you are modulating outputs into a distribution scheme, the receiver is usually nearby the primary monitor in most installs. Rather than play with long monitor runs, you might be better off with an HD modulator running back over RF coax, which will reach more sets with less problems.
The video out to the monitor is a bit different and there cable type and length become more important. Unless you are modulating outputs into a distribution scheme, the receiver is usually nearby the primary monitor in most installs. Rather than play with long monitor runs, you might be better off with an HD modulator running back over RF coax, which will reach more sets with less problems.
Most dish installers use RG6 double-shield.
The only RG6QS (quad shield) I've ever seen was put in by the cable company..and cable TV can benefit more from the additional shielding.
The only RG6QS (quad shield) I've ever seen was put in by the cable company..and cable TV can benefit more from the additional shielding.
Last edited:
You must have cheap-hineyed dish installers out your way. Most are cheap. That, or they're still pulling like it's the early '90s.
I've seen the exact opposite. The loss rates dramatically rise as you climb the band and the carrier RFs are more easily disturbed. It becomes a bandwidth integrity issue. RG11 and QS are slightly more future proof as coax goes if you have to pull the stuff. As folks get frightened by the cost and effort of the 11, they usually opt for the QS.
Must be the northern latitudes.
I've seen the exact opposite. The loss rates dramatically rise as you climb the band and the carrier RFs are more easily disturbed. It becomes a bandwidth integrity issue. RG11 and QS are slightly more future proof as coax goes if you have to pull the stuff. As folks get frightened by the cost and effort of the 11, they usually opt for the QS.
Must be the northern latitudes.
I've compared spec sheets for both QS and double-shield and the additional shielding means squat as far as attenuation is concerned.
On top of that, the 950-2250 MHz band that DSS systems use between the LNB and the reciever isn't subject to nearly the levels of ingress that cable TV, which operates between 5MHz on up to 860MHz or more, is.
Paging transmitters always do a number on channel 18/19 if there's a problem with the cable. Not to mention what ingress from CB transmitters can do to the return band..and then there's HAM transmitters, fire/police/ambulance transmitters, and let's not forget the FCC's cumulative leakage index requirements....
Both Cox and Comcast use quad-shield cable. Adelphia was last I saw still using double-shield, but that's probably all they could afford...
I should mention that Dish installers WILL use quad-shield--when it's already in the walls, installed there by the cable company. (My house was pre-wired (when it was built in late 1994) with quad shield by what was then Jones Intercable).
On top of that, the 950-2250 MHz band that DSS systems use between the LNB and the reciever isn't subject to nearly the levels of ingress that cable TV, which operates between 5MHz on up to 860MHz or more, is.
Paging transmitters always do a number on channel 18/19 if there's a problem with the cable. Not to mention what ingress from CB transmitters can do to the return band..and then there's HAM transmitters, fire/police/ambulance transmitters, and let's not forget the FCC's cumulative leakage index requirements....
Both Cox and Comcast use quad-shield cable. Adelphia was last I saw still using double-shield, but that's probably all they could afford...
I should mention that Dish installers WILL use quad-shield--when it's already in the walls, installed there by the cable company. (My house was pre-wired (when it was built in late 1994) with quad shield by what was then Jones Intercable).
Last edited:
No one ever said anything about attenuation rates, which is roughly comparable between the two across most of the bandwidth.
The problem is interference rising above the quieting threshold of the carrier at the peak attenuation levels of the longer runs. There is a lot less signal strength at 2 ghz at the end of a longer run than there is at 20 mhz. And there is substantially more 2 ghz band local interference today then there was in 1992 or 1994. QS holds up much better here, and is less prone to signal corruption than standard RG6 is. This ultimately reduces the need for and incidence of active components in the distribution design, which makes for a cheaper, more efficient and more reliable infrastructure in the long run. The head end equipment winds up performing less error correction, and performs better, too.
The problem is interference rising above the quieting threshold of the carrier at the peak attenuation levels of the longer runs. There is a lot less signal strength at 2 ghz at the end of a longer run than there is at 20 mhz. And there is substantially more 2 ghz band local interference today then there was in 1992 or 1994. QS holds up much better here, and is less prone to signal corruption than standard RG6 is. This ultimately reduces the need for and incidence of active components in the distribution design, which makes for a cheaper, more efficient and more reliable infrastructure in the long run. The head end equipment winds up performing less error correction, and performs better, too.
The sources of 2GHz interference tend to be a lot weaker than those sources of lower-band interference that can affect cable TV. That paging transmitter I mentioned? It was at least several miles away. Know of any 2GHz sources that can cause trouble for an installation several miles away?
And, with return band frequencies on cable TV, the entire system acts as a funnel where garbage picked up by one drop can effect performance for the entire node.
For these and other reasons, I am surprised that you see more QS used for dish than for cable TV, if I understood the meaning of
Or maybe you meant to say you've seen fewer cable TV problems (than dish problems) caused by poor cable. I've seen a bunch of cable TV problems caused by poor cable, and they got worse when digital cable and cable modems started becoming available!
And, with return band frequencies on cable TV, the entire system acts as a funnel where garbage picked up by one drop can effect performance for the entire node.
For these and other reasons, I am surprised that you see more QS used for dish than for cable TV, if I understood the meaning of
correctly.
Or maybe you meant to say you've seen fewer cable TV problems (than dish problems) caused by poor cable. I've seen a bunch of cable TV problems caused by poor cable, and they got worse when digital cable and cable modems started becoming available!
Last edited:
I suppose so. At the least with dish you're not adding another 50 to 100 feet or more from the house to the tap.
Also consider that many 2.4GHz devices are spread spectrum, wheras the typical stuff cable TV has to deal with concentrates all of it's output on one frequency.
Also consider that many 2.4GHz devices are spread spectrum, wheras the typical stuff cable TV has to deal with concentrates all of it's output on one frequency.
Last edited:
- Status
