RG59 on satellite splitter

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › RG59 on satellite splitter

DaMo73

121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

Topic # 89908 11-Sep-2011 00:51

My parents have a new sat box and they want to take one of the cables from the splitter we're using for analog and they want to put it into the satellite splitter we have and run Freeview from it.

Now we got Sky UHF back when it came to Southland ('94) and from what I've been reading tonight it would seem that back then we were using RG59 coax and now days it seems RG6 is the new standard for cabling.

So what disadvantages are there for running the RG59 cable into the satellite splitter? I've been seeing the word "loss" bandied around and I have no clue what that means so could someone please break it down into layman's terms for me.

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 215
Inactive user

Reply # 519449 11-Sep-2011 05:16

loss = signal strength loss over cable run length

RG59 = 5db loss for every 10 meters
RG6 = 3db loss for same length

reason is thicker cable and better shielding

kiwisat

147 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Reply # 519456 11-Sep-2011 07:26

You mention that your parents have a new sat box.

You will require a satellite dish to receive signal. The splitter you mention is connected to analog (UHF) if I understand your post correctly, not a dish.

DaMo73

121 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 1

Reply # 519517 11-Sep-2011 12:33

kiwisat: You mention that your parents have a new sat box.

You will require a satellite dish to receive signal. The splitter you mention is connected to analog (UHF) if I understand your post correctly, not a dish.

We have the analog splitter connected to two TV's (parent's bedroom and living room) and the satellite splitter was installed when my sister and her partner were living here, which is set up like multiroom, and the old man wants the RG59 cable running from the living room hooked up to the sat splitter.

I can already see problems with this, however, as the RG59 cable is thicker and has a thicker connector than the RG6 does so I can't see how the RG59 would connect to an RG6 splitter anyway.

Spyware

1974 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 317

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 519519 11-Sep-2011 12:39

Totally untrue, RG59 is thinner than RG6. F type plugs are available for both RG6 and RG59 (the thinner stuff) so both will obviously connect to a splitter with F type sockets.

Ross

Spark FibreMAX using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+

Speed Test

richms

21233 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4270

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 519588 11-Sep-2011 15:49

Give it a shot. Worked OK mostly for me thru some really old buried RG59 out to the garage. I chopped into it as close as possible at each end (splitter in the garage, joiner under the house) to use RG6 as much as possible.

Richard rich.ms

alexx

606 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 38

Reply # 519604 11-Sep-2011 16:54

http://www.google.com/search?q=rg59+vs+rg6

Cable loss (or attenuation) depends on the frequency, so the higher the frequency, the more important it becomes. You might have trouble finding attenuation figures for RG59 at satellite (e.g. Ku band) frequencies, because it wasn't designed to be used at those frequencies so no-one lists them. For example, this calculator stops at 4000MHz.

http://www.net-comber.com/cable-loss.html

Edit: frequency range of chart is enough since we are talking about intermediate frequencies in this case.

Perhaps it will work o.k. for you if the cable run is short enough.
Perhaps a piece of wet string will work too.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

richms

21233 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4270

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 519606 11-Sep-2011 16:57

Even at the upper limit of 2000MHz a 30 meter run is still not even 12dB loss according to that chart. That's not massive and should still work.

The problem is there is RG59, and then there is "RG59", Have pulled some horrid stuff out of friends houses from the old antenna installs.

Richard rich.ms

alexx

606 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 38

Reply # 519612 11-Sep-2011 17:15

Perhaps worth a try, but not only are all RG59 not created equal, but the standard of installation can vary when people are installing it thinking it only has to work for VHF/UHF TV... and yes 2000MHz is o.k. for calculations in this case.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

tangerz

536 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

Reply # 519660 11-Sep-2011 19:20

I'd say give it a go. You'll probably find it works OK. Ideally you'd replace it with RG6 but not knowing your situation it may be its inaccessable/too much trouble.

As long as you have a decent signal level at the splitter and the run isn't too long you should be OK, maybe just affected by signal drop out/pixelation or 'rainfade' a little more often. If the cable was an original Sky UHF install the cable quality is probably decent enough, (though I'm not sure what kinda quality cable they used back then so its only a guess). As richms has said there is some pretty dodgy 'RG59' out there!

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 215
Inactive user

Reply # 520261 13-Sep-2011 00:40

When I was installing for Sky (Aerial Master HB) we used what ever was the cheapest crap we could get away with which meant RG59 for shorter runs but we did use good quality RG6 for longer than 30mtr runs