# RG59 or RG6, does it matter?



## Hickoryw (Dec 6, 2008)

Hooking up 3 minis to a roamio pro created MoCa network. Does it matter if the coax is RG59 or RG6 or a mix of both? Will it work on RG59? Will it be faster on RG6?


----------



## mickinct (Sep 14, 2015)

Hickoryw said:


> Hooking up 3 minis to a roamio pro created MoCa network. Does it matter if the coax is RG59 or RG6 or a mix of both? Will it work on RG59? Will it be faster on RG6?


https://sewelldirect.com/learning-center/rg59-or-rg6 RG 6

All of the new demands required by, satellite signals and broadband internet made it necessary to find a more effective coaxial cable. RG6 cable was designed to fulfill these requirements. It has a larger conductor, which gives you much better signal quality. The dielectric insulation was made thicker as well, which means it is much less likely to carry an electric current that could damage your sensitive electronics. RG 6 is also made with a different kind of shielding, which allows it to more effectively handle Ghz level signals.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Either will work since both have the required impedance (75 ohm) and both can take the commonly used F connectors. However, RG-6 has lower loss per foot of cable and is generally preferred. There is a table comparing loss in the article linked in post #2 of this thread.

What's kind of dismal is that either type is very lossy. Even RG-6 loses 79% of power (6.8 dB attenuation) at 900 MHz (the top of the TV band) over a 100 ft run. It's very fortunate that the electrical power wiring in your house isn't anywhere near that lossy! (Of course the TV cable would have very low loss at the 60 Hz used for power.)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

dlfl said:


> Either will work since both have the required impedance (75 ohm) and both can take the commonly used F connectors. However, RG-6 has lower loss per foot of cable and is generally preferred. There is a table comparing loss in the article linked in post #2 of this thread.
> 
> What's kind of dismal is that either type is very lossy. Even RG-6 loses 79% of power (6.8 dB attenuation) at 900 MHz (the top of the TV band) over a 100 ft run. It's very fortunate that the electrical power wiring in your house isn't anywhere near that lossy! (Of course the TV cable would have very low loss at the 60 Hz used for power.)


What MoCA channel frequency does TiVo default to - as that could have a major impact with RG59...And considering that is most important element of OP post.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> What MoCA channel frequency does TiVo default to - as that could have a major impact with RG59...And considering that is most important element of OP post.


I'm almost positive I have RG59 at my home. 1994. Moca and all signals are great and I have 9 outlets.


----------



## doctord (Dec 17, 2004)

I have a mini in my upstairs bedroom that is fed via RG59 from an Elite downstairs.
The cable was in the walls since I bought the place and it was built in 1978.
No issues with moca or video.
If I was installing new cable, I would definitely go R6.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> What MoCA channel frequency does TiVo default to - as that could have a major impact with RG59...And considering that is most important element of OP post.


TiVo normally defaults to "auto", which could end up anywhere from 1125MHz to 1525MHz. I'm guessing the MoCA adapters will try lower frequencies first in order to minimize issues with older splitters.

RG59 doesn't magically stop carrying signals at a particular frequency, and will work well beyond 2000MHz. It just has higher loss than RG6 at all frequencies.

RG59 may have problems if your house is the size of a football field. For smaller homes, it usually works just fine.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

RG59 was fine for older analog cable systems, but newer digital cable systems and satellites require RG6. There are several different types of RG6.

Signal wire - this can be either copperclad steel or solid copper. The most common variety is copperclad steel, which is also the cheapest. It's fine for short runs, but will have higher signal loss for longer runs. It also has lower bandwidth and may not be suitable for satellite and most digital cable systems. Solid copper core is the best, but it's also the most expensive.

Shield - the shield is basically the ground return for the signal. It can be composed of a foil wrap and may have up to four single thin wires wrapped around the dielectric and is commonly known as quad shield. Cheaper cables may only have the foil shield and just one or two ground wires. Higher quality cables will have a braided shield, but again this is more expensive.

If you make your own cables, don't even bother with the old style crimp fasteners. Get some higher quality crimp connectors and a compression tool for putting them together. You'll have a much more solid connection and greatly reduce the chance of the connector falling apart. You'll also have much lower signal loss. Look on ebay for deals on both the connectors and the compression tool. You can buy them at most home improvement stores, but you'll pay a ridiculous price for them. Same goes for the coax cable. I generally buy cable in 1,000-ft rolls simply because I tend to rewire my entire house when I upgrade. A lot of installers buy cable in bulk for installation jobs and end up with a lot of cable left over. I've picked up remnant cable in lengths of 300-ft or more on ebay for a lot less than I would have paid normally. This is an economical way to get quality Ethernet riser cable, like CAT5e or CAT6.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

mr.unnatural said:


> RG59 was fine for older analog cable systems, but newer digital cable systems and satellites require RG6. There are several different types of RG6.


Since there are plenty of people here reporting that they are using RG59 without any problem, it is clear that your claim that newer digital cable systems "require" RG6 is simply too extreme.

Yes, RG6 is better than RG59, because RG59 has higher loss. The difference becomes more important at higher frequencies, and that is why satellite systems need RG6. However, there is no meaningful difference between analog and digital. Coax doesn't know or care if the signals are analog or digital, RF signals all obey Maxwell's equations whether or not the TV signal is encoded into a digital data stream. Both RG59 and RG6 will carry signals well above 2000MHz, so for MoCA networks or OTA/catv signals that people in TCF forums care about, either will work fine.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

snerd said:


> Since there are plenty of people here reporting that they are using RG59 without any problem, it is clear that your claim that newer digital cable systems "require" RG6 is simply too extreme.
> 
> Yes, RG6 is better than RG59, because RG59 has higher loss. The difference becomes more important at higher frequencies, and that is why satellite systems need RG6. However, there is no meaningful difference between analog and digital. Coax doesn't know or care if the signals are analog or digital, RF signals all obey Maxwell's equations whether or not the TV signal is encoded into a digital data stream. Both RG59 and RG6 will carry signals well above 2000MHz, so for MoCA networks or OTA/catv signals that people in TCF forums care about, either will work fine.


Well said. I asked a friend at work who has Directv on what he has and stated his house was prewired for RG59 and while they said he needed RG6 when they installed and tested with current house wiring it worked fine. Going on 4 years with no issues. They don't cover rewiring the house in free installation and you have to basically take responsibility that they say you need RG6 and you don't have that. He has RG6 from the dish to the side of the house only.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

snerd said:


> Since there are plenty of people here reporting that they are using RG59 without any problem, it is clear that your claim that newer digital cable systems "require" RG6 is simply too extreme.


I would never use RG59 for any work these days, since I prefer overkill and if you're going to the trouble, even just a new lead, why not; but you are correct.

Over the years I've seen so much variation in quality and condition of cable that I'd even make this blanket statement: at most household distances, highest quality RG59 in optimal condition will outperform cheap RG6 particularly if it has sharp bends, fraying, or water intrusion. There is horrible RG6 cable being sold in department stores and online.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Wil said:


> I would never use RG59 for any work these days, since I prefer overkill and if you're going to the trouble, even just a new lead, why not; but you are correct.
> 
> Over the years I've seen so much variation in quality and condition of cable that I'd even make this blanket statement: at most household distances, *highest quality RG59 in optimal condition* will outperform cheap RG6 particularly if it has sharp bends, fraying, or water intrusion. There is horrible RG6 cable being sold in department stores and online.


Builders Use the cheapest RG59 (or RG6) they can find....like the prefab stuff at Home Depot or Lowes, unless the specs call for "highest quality".


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Builders Use the cheapest RG59 (or RG6) they can find....like the prefab stuff at Home Depot or Lowes, unless the specs call for "highest quality".


I hardly ever get stuff at places like that. But at a time of immediate need some years ago I went to, I think HDepot. Looked at the specs of what they had (the supplier and # was printed on the outside) and it looked good. Ran some sweeps and it was even better than that. I have no idea if that was an exception.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Wil said:


> I hardly ever get stuff at places like that. But at a time of immediate need some years ago I went to, I think HDepot. Looked at the specs of what they had (the supplier and # was printed on the outside) and it looked good. Ran some sweeps and it was even better than that. I have no idea if that was an exception.


I am talking the prepackaged RCA junk, not the stuff on spools.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I am talking the prepackaged RCA junk


You and I are in 100% agreement.

A miracle has been achieved and Tivo Community Forum can close up shop and retire; it can accomplish no greater feat.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> TiVo normally defaults to "auto", which could end up anywhere from 1125MHz to 1525MHz. I'm guessing the MoCA adapters will try lower frequencies first in order to minimize issues with older splitters.
> 
> RG59 doesn't magically stop carrying signals at a particular frequency, and will work well beyond 2000MHz. It just has higher loss than RG6 at all frequencies.
> 
> RG59 may have problems if your house is the size of a football field. For smaller homes, it usually works just fine.


Work, yes. Well....that's a deep subject.

RG59 is only swept and recommended in uses lower than 1Ghz and as you noted, MoCA can be over 1Ghz.

RG6 is now normally swept to 2Ghz with much less loss in the 1-2Ghz range.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

snerd said:


> Since there are plenty of people here reporting that they are using RG59 without any problem, it is clear that your claim that newer digital cable systems "require" RG6 is simply too extreme.
> 
> Yes, RG6 is better than RG59, because RG59 has higher loss. The difference becomes more important at higher frequencies, and that is why satellite systems need RG6. However, there is no meaningful difference between analog and digital. Coax doesn't know or care if the signals are analog or digital, RF signals all obey Maxwell's equations whether or not the TV signal is encoded into a digital data stream. Both RG59 and RG6 will carry signals well above 2000MHz, so for MoCA networks or OTA/catv signals that people in TCF forums care about, either will work fine.


RG6 not only has lower loss, but it supports a much wider bandwidth than RG59. Just because RG59 works for some people doesn't mean it gives you the best signal. Digital cable and satellite have much wider bandwidth requirements than older analog systems. It's got nothing to do with whether the signal is analog or digital but rather the bandwidth of the system. Analog cable was limited to a specific range of frequencies whereas digital cable transmits signals well outside of that range. RG59 may work, but it simply won't work as well as RG6 because the signal level will drop off at the extremes of the bandwidth range. You may still get a signal, but it can be severely attenuated depending on the frequency of the channel in question. I sincerely doubt than any cable installer uses RG59 anymore. Satellite installers have always used RG6 due to the higher frequency requirements.

It all boils down to whether or not you're satisfied with using something that is "good enough" or something that's actually designed for the task at hand. I can communicate with someone using two tin cans and a string, but it's not the preferred method.  RG6 is the recommend coax for digital cable and satellite systems so that's what I use. Recommending RG59 is not something I'd tell a friend to do.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> RG6 not only has lower loss, but it supports a much wider bandwidth than RG59. Just because RG59 works for some people doesn't mean it gives you the best signal. Digital cable and satellite have much wider bandwidth requirements than older analog systems. It's got nothing to do with whether the signal is analog or digital but rather the bandwidth of the system. Analog cable was limited to a specific range of frequencies whereas digital cable transmits signals well outside of that range. RG59 may work, but it simply won't work as well as RG6 because the signal level will drop off at the extremes of the bandwidth range. You may still get a signal, but it can be severely attenuated depending on the frequency of the channel in question. I sincerely doubt than any cable installer uses RG59 anymore. Satellite installers have always used RG6 due to the higher frequency requirements.
> 
> It all boils down to whether or not you're satisfied with using something that is "good enough" or something that's actually designed for the task at hand. I can communicate with someone using two tin cans and a string, but it's not the preferred method.  RG6 is the recommend coax for digital cable and satellite systems so that's what I use. Recommending RG59 is not something I'd tell a friend to do.


Of course one would not do a new install of RG59. But if you have it 9 out of 10 times it will work fine. I have 150MBS down and 30 up with 9 TV outlets all with TIVO on MOCA with the exception of one that is Ethernet along with 5 other devices using MOCA and all on RG59. My download speed is over 150mbs and never had a signal issue. Again my friend has Directv with all the channels with house wiring of RG59 and no issues. MOCA is strong so the argument of anything with higher freqs will have problems is not true in most cases. Directv operates in the 2000 range I believe and RG59 works.

yes if you live in a mansion you might have a problem. I have a 3000 square foot home and don't have any issues. So the benefit to upgrade the house to RG6 at this time is nothing but just to feel good. Now if it starts effecting things like when they got DOCIS 3.1 and I couldn't get the speed because of the cable then I would have to look at that then.

And your tin can analogy is not very good. If I get my internet speed and tv channels all in full HD without issues its not good enough it works. There would be no benefit for RG6. A tin can is not preferred because sound sucks and you are limited with distance. It doesn't do what people want. RG59 as proven does exactly what most people want and need.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

FYI:

http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-rg6-and-rg59/

https://sewelldirect.com/learning-center/rg59-or-rg6

http://blog.solidsignal.com/content.php/2114-Which-is-better-RG59-RG6-or-RG11-cable

http://www.milestek.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/rg59-coax-vs-rg6-coax/

http://www.highdefforum.com/directv-forum/120763-directv-rg6-vs-rg59-question.html

http://www.bedrocklearning.com/cs_strw_page7.htm

You decide. Personally, I take recommendations from anyone a public forum with a huge grain of salt unless I'm actually aware of their expertise. I would never expect anyone I didn't know to take my word for anything. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but just someone that's worked in the electronics field for over 38 years, mostly dealing with RF components.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> FYI:
> 
> http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-rg6-and-rg59/
> 
> ...


Point taken. Just saying RG59 until it doesn't handle what I pay for from my cable company it's not cost effective to replace just because RG6 was designed for it better. It's like Cat 5 to cat 5e to cat 6. Cat 5 will do just fine for 99% of reg people but is cat 6 best of course. Should someone rewire their cat 5 house with cat 6 if there isn't a reason?


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

In my experience, the main run to the Roamio is more sensitive than the MOCA runs to the Minis. I was getting pixelation on certain channels until I switched away from my RG59 wired through my house (that worked swell for Verizon FIOS DVRs) to a RG6 "homerun" that had been installed back when I had DirecTv.

YMMV


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

joewom said:


> I have ... 9 TV outlets all with TIVO on MOCA with the exception of one that is Ethernet along with 5 other devices using MOCA and all on RG59.


Might want to correct your Equipment list to reflect this....unless it is already correct


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Might want to correct your Equipment list to reflect this....unless it is already correct


how is it wrong? 6 minis, 2 roamios and a XL4. Equals 9 to me. Other devices like computers and gaming systems on MOCA I do not include.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

mr.unnatural said:


> RG6 not only has lower loss, but it supports a much wider bandwidth than RG59. Just because RG59 works for some people doesn't mean it gives you the best signal. Digital cable and satellite have much wider bandwidth requirements than older analog systems.


Bandwidth arguments aren't really very meaningful in the context of coaxial cable. Amplifiers and many other electrical/electronic component have very specific fixed bandwidth specs. Coax does not, and as an RF engineer I cringe whenever I see the bandwidth flag raised in the discussion about coax.

The claim that digital cable needs more bandwidth than analog video is simply not supported by engineering facts. Cable systems typically pack *two HD channels* into each 6MHz band that was originally used for analog. That same 6MHz band is used to transmit a digital stream that can carry 8 or more SD channels. On my own Comcast connection, for example, the 171MHz slot is used for channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 24. These happen to be mostly local TV. The switch to MPEG4 will pack even more channels into each 6MHz slot.



> It's got nothing to do with whether the signal is analog or digital but rather the bandwidth of the system. Analog cable was limited to a specific range of frequencies whereas digital cable transmits signals well outside of that range.


That limited range of frequencies has nothing to do with the bandwidth of coax, and everything to do with FCC regulations. This Wikipedia page has a good summary. The upper end of 890MHz for analog UHF frequencies was extended on cable to 1002MHz.



> RG59 may work, but it simply won't work as well as RG6 because the signal level will drop off at the extremes of the bandwidth range.


I agree that RG6 works better than RG59, but this claim that "the signal level will drop off at the extremes of the bandwidth range" makes it sound as if there is some sort of frequency cliff where RG59 begins to have massive losses, and that simply isn't true.
See page 173 of this document which compares attenuation of several types of coax up to 2150MHz. Now maybe you'll see something different, but to my eyes it appears that the attenuation for RG6, RG59, RG11 and all of the others, increases pretty smoothly all the way up to 2150MHz, well above the 1002MHz top end used for catv.

There are at least four different loss mechanisms in coaxial cable, but the most significant factor is AC resistance in the center conductor and the shield. This resistance increases as the square root of frequency, so the loss in dB/100-ft will double each time the frequency is increased by a factor of 4.



> You may still get a signal, but it can be severely attenuated depending on the frequency of the channel in question. I sincerely doubt than any cable installer uses RG59 anymore.


At 1000MHz, the highest frequency for catv, RG59 has a loss of 8.09 dB/100-ft while RG6 has a loss of 6.54 dB/100-ft. So, for a 300-ft run of coax (the length of a football field) the difference in loss is a whopping 4.65dB. That is less loss than you'll get from a 3-way splitter. I don't think "severely attenuated" is a fair characterization.

Once again, I agree that RG6 is better than RG59. However, the difference can be more accurately described as an "incremental improvement" rather than any earth-shaking improvement that is often touted for RG6.



> It all boils down to whether or not you're satisfied with using something that is "good enough" or something that's actually designed for the task at hand. I can communicate with someone using two tin cans and a string, but it's not the preferred method.  RG6 is the recommend coax for digital cable and satellite systems so that's what I use. Recommending RG59 is not something I'd tell a friend to do.


I don't have any problem with anyone recommending RG6, especially for new installs. However, the hype that is often used to describe the difference between RG6 and RG59 is largely a marketing tool not unlike the "Monster Cable" claims of audio buffs. While RG6 is better, RG59 is actually pretty damned good.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm not claiming to be an expert and your points are all good. The original question was whether or not it matters to use RG59 or RG6. It all depends on how it's being used. For cable TV it may not matter all that much unless you're dealing with exceptionally long cable runs. For satellite TV it's a necessity.

As for the Monster Cable reference, I've never bought into the hype that surrounded exotic cable design. It's all just wire and there's nothing magical about it. I used to be into high end audio decades ago. While I could tell the difference between listening to various audio components, I could never really hear any discernible differences between cables. Marriage and a family got me out of my high end fantasy and back to the real world so I left all that behind.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> Marriage and a family got me out of my high end fantasy and back to the real world so I left all that behind.


I feel ya...

RG59 or RG6, does it matter?
It may.

Anecdote:
In 2007 I purchased a S3 648250 OLED TiVo.
It did not work properly, poor picture quality on some "key" channels, when connected with RG59 cable.
The timewarner tech told me that I had to use RG6 cable, I didn't believe it, and so dismissed him.

Later that day I ran a new RG6 cable from the split in the attic to the TiVo (factory terminated; 100ft cable, think I paid $20.)
The problem was instantly fixed, clear picture.
The RG59 cable was about 15 years old at that time and is currently still in use for OTA connection to a Roamio Basic.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

The takeaway from the above is for a new cable purchase use quad shield RG6, if you already have RG59 in your home don't change it out unless your having problems, some old RG59 cable may break down when run outside (as some cable co have done to reach other rooms in your home) or in a cold attic, RG6 will do better job if you can install quad shield RG6 coax when possible.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

snerd said:


> RG59 may have problems if your house is the size of a football field. For smaller homes, it usually works just fine.


I've had no issues with one of my Minis using MoCA on a 25ft RG59 run. I certainly wouldn't install it for a new run but I also wouldn't rip it out for an old one if it worked. Yes, this is a Captain Obvious statement but people saying RG59 is bad for MoCA are obviously not right in all cases.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Upon further reflection, one of the main issues that people might have when using RG59 vs RG6 is the fact that if RG59 was installed more than a decade ago it most likely uses the older crimp style connectors. Installers use compression connectors as a rule with RG6 these days, which provides a much better connection and is less likely to have intermittent issues. Switching out the connectors at each end of the cable will probably give you better results than you see now with RG59 and crimp connectors. I used to have issues with connections pulling apart with the old crimp connectors. I've never had that problem using the newer compression connectors.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

slowbiscuit said:


> I've had no issues with one of my Minis using MoCA on a 25ft RG59 run.


I am a huge proponent of "if it ain't broke; don't fix it."

But, now that you have spoken, wait for it.......


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

As I have witnessed, and others have posted, after the last firmware update, TiVo has changed the MoCA channel default from AUTO to 15, the LOWEST possible frequency. 

As RG59 has more issues upwards of above 1Ghz and higher, I suspect this change was not made at random.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

*shrug* It worked fine for me with RG59 before the update.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

slowbiscuit said:


> *shrug* It worked fine for me with RG59 before the update.


Not debating that.

The point I made was MoCA was changed from AUTO to the LOWEST FREQUENCY MOCA CHANNEL with the last update.

As RG59 rolls off fast over 1Ghz, and the higher you go, the more the rolloff - it makes all the sense in the world that TiVo would move from AUTO to the LOWEST FREQUENCY CHANNEL to prevent as many problems as possible.

Nothing more. Nothing less is being implied.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Not debating that.
> 
> The point I made was MoCA was changed from AUTO to the LOWEST FREQUENCY MOCA CHANNEL with the last update.
> 
> ...


I'm using moca 2.0 on RG59 and zero issues. It selected the channel in the 1.5 Ghtz range. Solid connection!


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Nothing more. Nothing less is being implied.


That's the problem with your style (which I have no problem with BTW; I appreciate bizarre): readers expect something outrageous and even when you're making a simple, reasonable point they read your history into it.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Not debating that.
> 
> The point I made was MoCA was changed from AUTO to the LOWEST FREQUENCY MOCA CHANNEL with the last update.
> 
> ...


Pure myth. For RG6, RG59, RG11 and pretty much any commercial coax, attenuation increases essentially at a rate that is proportional to the square root of frequency. This attenuation is due to resistance in the conductors. There is a secondary attenuation mechanism due to dielectric losses, which are directly proportional to frequency, but resistance remains the dominant loss mechanism below *several GHz.*

If you have a credible source with a plot of this rapid rolloff, please post a link. Handwaving arguments devoid of data need not apply. See page 173 here for comparison.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As RG59 has more issues upwards of above 1Ghz and higher,


BFD. The same comment applies to *every form of transmission line*, including all forms of coax, as well as UTP in phone lines, CAT5e, CAT6e, etc. Attenuation always increases with frequency by any means known to mankind.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> Pure myth. For RG6, RG59, RG11 and pretty much any commercial coax, attenuation increases essentially at a rate that is proportional to the square root of frequency. This attenuation is due to resistance in the conductors. There is a secondary attenuation mechanism due to dielectric losses, which are directly proportional to frequency, but resistance remains the dominant loss mechanism below *several GHz.*
> 
> If you have a credible source with a plot of this rapid rolloff, please post a link. Handwaving arguments devoid of data need not apply. See page 173 here for comparison.


So even though multiple links have been posted of RG6 and RG59 specs, you still insist that RG6 and RG59 have same attenuation at 1Ghz and 2Ghz?

Even your link shows a 25% higher attenuation at 1Ghz for RG59 than RG6.

The problem is you need to learn simple 2nd grade math it appears.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Wil said:


> That's the problem with your style (which I have no problem with BTW; I appreciate bizarre): readers expect something outrageous and even when you're making a simple, reasonable point they read your history into it.


Not my problem if people cannot read what is on a page.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

snerd said:


> If you have a credible source with a plot of this rapid rolloff, please post a link.


I think your point is you're not going to see anything as dramatic as a reverse hockey stick vs. a smooth downward curve up through 2000 MHz and you are correct. But the lines are not going to be parallel either I think you'd have to agree.

The difference in RATE of attenuation increase between RG59 and RG6 at 1000 MHz is I think around 7%; not huge, but not nothing either.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Wil said:


> I think your point is you're not going to see anything as dramatic as a reverse hockey stick vs. a smooth downward curve up through 2000 MHz and you are correct. But the lines are not going to be parallel either I think you'd have to agree.
> 
> The difference in RATE of attenuation increase between RG59 and RG6 at 1000 MHz is I think around 7%; not huge, but not nothing either.


But as you know with digital, its either there or its not. 7% can make the difference.

Which my point was (FACT) TiVo changed the MoCA default channel in the last Firmware Update from AUTO to Channel 15 (the LOWEST FREQUENCY).

As this is a change, it certainly was not done with no reason in mind.

The most logical was to get the Frequencies as low as possible.

As there are 8 MoCA 1.1 Channels (and conversely, 8 Channels on the TiVo Moca [15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29]), it is very clear that what TiVo calls Channel 15 is Channel D1 at 1150Mhz.

Again, it is very clear that TiVo decided it wanted the MoCA to default to the lowest possible frequency possible, as opposed to D8 which is almost 50% higher in frequency.

The logical reason is they wanted those using RG59 and on the edge the best possible chance of making MoCA work successfully (unless some other random idiot wants to argue that TiVo Software Designer's lucky number was 15 so they decided to use that instead of AUTO....which probably someone above would argue).

EDIT: Based on this article, the TiVo BOLT appears to use MoCA 2.0. http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/tivo-extends-moca-bridge/394580


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> So even though multiple links have been posted of RG6 and RG59 specs, you still insist that RG6 and RG59 have same attenuation at 1Ghz and 2Ghz?


Where are these "multiple links" that you speak about? I must have missed them.

Please don't lie about my claims. I've never once said (much less insisted) that RG6 and RG59 have the same attenuation. I've always said that RG6 is (somewhat) better than RG59.



> Even your link shows a 25% higher attenuation at 1Ghz for RG59 than RG6.
> 
> The problem is you need to learn simple 2nd grade math it appears.


Let's check my math at a few more data points:

55MHz: 188/1.50 = 1.253 (RG59 has 25.3% higher loss)
270MHz: 4.05/3.24 = 1.25 (RG59 has 25.0% higher loss)
500MHz: 5.5/4.51 = 1.2195 (RG59 has 21.95% higher loss)
1000MHz: 8.09/6.54 = 1.237 (RG59 has 23.7% higher loss)
1450MHz: 9.82/7.89 = 1.245 (RG59 has 24.5% higher loss)
2150MHz: 12.10/9.69 = 1.249 (RG59 has 24.9% higher loss)

So for pretty much any frequency, the loss in RG59 is about 25% greater than the loss for RG6. So 80ft of RG59 will perform pretty much the same as 100ft of RG6, and 240ft of RG59 will perform pretty much the same as 300ft of RG6. RG6 is a little better, for the same loss you can have a 25% longer cable. This is completely consistent with what I've claimed all along.

Where's the "cliff"?

My math skills are fine. How are your reading comprehension skills?


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> But as you know with digital, its either there or its not. 7% can make the difference.
> 
> Which my point was (FACT) TiVo changed the MoCA default channel in the last Firmware Update from AUTO to Channel 15 (the LOWEST FREQUENCY).
> 
> ...


I will take a stab. Because none of use know tivos reason of doing anything none of us can logically say anything why they do what they do. Maybe just maybe they changed the default channel because most people have splitters that stop at 1ghz. Yes it works but I would argue this will effect your moca far more the. Rg59!!


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

Wil said:


> I think your point is you're not going to see anything as dramatic as a reverse hockey stick vs. a smooth downward curve up through 2000 MHz and you are correct. But the lines are not going to be parallel either I think you'd have to agree.
> 
> The difference in RATE of attenuation increase between RG59 and RG6 at 1000 MHz is I think around 7%; not huge, but not nothing either.


The link that I posted shows a pretty consistent 25% difference between RG6 and RG59, up to 2150MHz. Maybe my source is wrong, so if you have links to other data, I'd appreciate seeing them.

On the log/log plots that are typically used for attenuation vs. frequency, the curves are expected to have a slope of -1/2 while wire resistance is the dominant loss mechanism. When dielectric loss becomes dominant, the slope increase to -1, but dielectric loss doesn't usually become dominant until higher microwave frequencies (perhaps > 10GHz).


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

There is no need to be confused by the facts...

If your network has RG59 cable and it works (for you); then it's all good. 
The RG59 cable in my house is 25 years old and still works for OTA signal to a Roamio Basic, 72% or better signal strength.
If not, the next best alternative is RG6 cable.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

RG59 is perfectly fine for OTA. I originally installed RG59 when I first moved into my house back in 1986. Since then I have replaced it with RG6 when I switched to DirecTV. I upgraded once again to RG6 solid copper core with the idea of upgrading to the latest Ka band satellites for HD content from DirecTV. I ended up switching to FIOS before that happened, but I kept the RG6 copper.

Switching to RG6 or RG6 solid copper may seem like overkill to the "experts" in this thread, but I look at it this way. Technology changes all the time, as does the infrastructure of our TV delivery systems. Upgrading to solid copper RG6 may give me an edge for any future technology that comes down the pike so it puts me one step ahead. Did I need to do it? Probably not, but it gives me peace of mind knowing my setup will handle any kind of cable or satellite signal thrown in my direction. I may never switch back to DirecTV, but anything's possible. If that ever happens, I'm ready for it. The best part of it is that making the switch will be quick and easy as I have various distribution points that can be configured for either multi-switches or splitters.

Is your setup future-proof? If you're still using RG59 then the answer is probably not.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> RG59 is perfectly fine for OTA. I originally installed RG59 when I first moved into my house back in 1986. Since then I have replaced it with RG6 when I switched to DirecTV. I upgraded once again to RG6 solid copper core with the idea of upgrading to the latest Ka band satellites for HD content from DirecTV. I ended up switching to FIOS before that happened, but I kept the RG6 copper.
> 
> Switching to RG6 or RG6 solid copper may seem like overkill to the "experts" in this thread, but I look at it this way. Technology changes all the time, as does the infrastructure of our TV delivery systems. Upgrading to solid copper RG6 may give me an edge for any future technology that comes down the pike so it puts me one step ahead. Did I need to do it? Probably not, but it gives me peace of mind knowing my setup will handle any kind of cable or satellite signal thrown in my direction. I may never switch back to DirecTV, but anything's possible. If that ever happens, I'm ready for it. The best part of it is that making the switch will be quick and easy as I have various distribution points that can be configured for either multi-switches or splitters.
> 
> Is your setup future-proof? If you're still using RG59 then the answer is probably not.


On any new cable installation using RG59 would not be the way to go as the labor cost is so much greater than in extra cost of RG6 quad shield cable. if you already have RG59 and not having any cable problems, don't change.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

mr.unnatural said:


> RG59 is perfectly fine for OTA. I originally installed RG59 when I first moved into my house back in 1986. Since then I have replaced it with RG6 when I switched to DirecTV. I upgraded once again to RG6 solid copper core with the idea of upgrading to the latest Ka band satellites for HD content from DirecTV. I ended up switching to FIOS before that happened, but I kept the RG6 copper.
> 
> Switching to RG6 or RG6 solid copper may seem like overkill to the "experts" in this thread, but I look at it this way. Technology changes all the time, as does the infrastructure of our TV delivery systems. Upgrading to solid copper RG6 may give me an edge for any future technology that comes down the pike so it puts me one step ahead. Did I need to do it? Probably not, but it gives me peace of mind knowing my setup will handle any kind of cable or satellite signal thrown in my direction. I may never switch back to DirecTV, but anything's possible. If that ever happens, I'm ready for it. The best part of it is that making the switch will be quick and easy as I have various distribution points that can be configured for either multi-switches or splitters.
> 
> Is your setup future-proof? If you're still using RG59 then the answer is probably not.


I don't see any future cable tech operating so high rg59 will not work and if it does rg6 certainly is not future profing your home. As anything using very high freqs may require RG7 or rg69 or whatever will replace rg6. And there will be something. At that point it might make sense for me to rewire my entire house and replace all the rg59 I have. As people pointed out the loss is not even remotely close to replace. If I was putting in yes RG6 is a no brained. Replacing if it requires allot of work never not with current tech to include directv or dish. Unless you have an issue which will be rare in median size homes.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> Where are these "multiple links" that you speak about? I must have missed them.
> 
> Please don't lie about my claims. I've never once said (much less insisted) that RG6 and RG59 have the same attenuation. I've always said that RG6 is (somewhat) better than RG59.
> 
> ...


Great....you admit that RG59 is not equal to RG6....finally. In fact it is 25% worse.

The cliff is where the device no longer has a digital signal to work with, which you like to ignore.

25% difference is major when it comes to working or not....which again, you like to ignore.

As for your reading comprehension, try re-reading post #33 above again....


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

joewom said:


> I will take a stab. Because none of use know tivos reason of doing anything none of us can logically say anything why they do what they do. Maybe just maybe they changed the default channel because most people have splitters that stop at 1ghz. Yes it works but I would argue this will effect your moca far more the. Rg59!!


if a splitter stops at 1Ghz, common sense tells you that 1.15Ghz is not going to pass.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Great....you admit that RG59 is not equal to RG6....finally. In fact it is 25% worse.
> 
> The cliff is where the device no longer has a digital signal to work with, which you like to ignore.
> 
> 25% difference is major when it comes to working or not....which again, you like to ignore.


I think you missed or ignore that a splitter does more to coax. No one is saying they are the same. We are saying unless you have 1000 feet or more no tech today will be effected if you have rg59 instead of 6. It's like cat 5, cat5e or cat 6. Is a resident home going to tell the difference? Would you rip out cat 5 because something calls for cat 6 when it's running just fine on 5?


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

Also some are ignoring the fact part of the strength is what's coming into your home. Many need to turn it down even with the so called inferior RG59. If you had RG6 you will have even stronger and might require equipment to bring it down which some even on RG59 require. So many factors are in play. But 25% is nothing if you have a good signal coming in or high which most get from cable.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> if a splitter stops at 1Ghz, common sense tells you that 1.15Ghz is not going to pass.


And yet it does just fine for so many. It's just not rated for it. My moca is running well above 1ghz and yet I have zero problems! On a 1ghz splitter. But if it didn't that would be my first place to look and not the RG59.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

joewom said:


> And yet it does just fine for so many. It's just not rated for it. My moca is running well above 1ghz and yet I have zero problems! On a 1ghz splitter. But if it didn't that would be my first place to look and not the RG59.


Of course splitters should be rated to 2Ghz.

This was first issue Directv had to deal with when they adopted SWiM.

If I have a car that gets 30 MPG under perfect conditions and I have 10 Gallons of Gas, can I get to a town 305 miles away without a fill Up?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

But to be sure I better have 11 Gallons of gas.

Sometimes it works. Other times it doesn't.

My car also wants 93 Octane, but will it run on 89 Octane?

Sure, but not as well....and continued use is going to cause issues.

I'd rather prevent problems than living on the edge.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I'd rather prevent problems than living on the edge.


I have previously said I prefer overkill in these situations. To follow your analogy, for a car trip requiring 10 gallons of gas I like to have 14.

But some people will look at their gas tank which specs at 10 gallons, that they have found actually holds 11.25, and may make a different choice. Can't you let them do that without going off?


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Of course splitters should be rated to 2Ghz.
> 
> This was first issue Directv had to deal with when they adopted SWiM.
> 
> ...


But my point is I'm getting exactly what I should be every time. I have had it set up this way for 2 years now with zero connectivity issues!! That's my point. I don't see why people are missing this. People are using RG59 for allot if their house was built farther then say 6 years which is allot. If I had to replace it all tomorrow for some reason I would pick RG6 obviously as there is no real savings between the two. But it works fine for all I have and splitters rated to 1ghz work fine also for moca.

If I maybe or maybe not got what I needed from RG59 it would be replaced but that's not the case.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Great....you admit that RG59 is not equal to RG6....finally. In fact it is 25% worse.


I specifically asked you not to lie about my claims. *Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.* In every post of this thread, I've clearly said that RG6 is better than RG59.

You are despicable. Thank you for making that clear up front, now I know that nothing you say has any credibility at all. I'd also like to thank you for exposing your lack of character in such a short thread, so that anyone who cares can easily see that you have intentionally misrepresented my words.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> if a splitter stops at 1Ghz, common sense tells you that 1.15Ghz is not going to pass.


No splitter has a low pass filter that drops off a cliff at >1Ghz, the rating is for some drop off spec after 1Ghz, a 2Ghz would have less drop off at 1.12Ghx than a 1Ghz splitter, MoCA works with both types of splitters, but will go further with a 2Ghz splitters in the system.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Wil said:


> I have previously said I prefer overkill in theses situations. To follow your analogy, for a car trip requiring 10 gallons of gas I like to have 14.
> 
> But some people will look at their gas tank which specs at 10 gallons, that they have found actually holds 11.25, and may make a different choice. Can't you let them do that without going off?





lessd said:


> No splitter has a low pass filter that drops off a cliff at >1Ghz, the rating is for some drop off spec after 1Ghz, a 2Ghz would have less drop off at 1.12Ghx than a 1Ghz splitter, MoCA works with both types of splitters, but will go further with a 2Ghz splitters in the system.


And as I have stated multiple times, if your unit is on the edge of the digital cliff, that is enough to be the difference between a satisfactory experience or not.

All one has to do is look what a small difference in db will do to the tuner in your TiVo with 2db attenuation(and the reverse).

Again, I posted if it works for you, great


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> No splitter has a low pass filter that drops off a cliff at >1Ghz, the rating is for some drop off spec after 1Ghz, a 2Ghz would have less drop off at 1.12Ghx than a 1Ghz splitter, MoCA works with both types of splitters, but will go further with a 2Ghz splitters in the system.


And as I have stated multiple times, if your unit is on the edge of the digital cliff, that is enough to be the difference between a satisfactory experience or not.

All one has to do is look what a small difference in db will do to the tuner in your TiVo with 2db attenuation(and the reverse).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> I specifically asked you not to lie about my claims. *Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.* In every post of this thread, I've clearly said that RG6 is better than RG59.
> 
> You are despicable. Thank you for making that clear up front, now I know that nothing you say has any credibility at all. I'd also like to thank you for exposing your lack of character in such a short thread, so that anyone who cares can easily see that you have intentionally misrepresented my words.


I see multiple lies in multiple threads daily from multiple nicks, including yours.

And you are correct, just repeating them over and over does not make them true. Try and remember that.

And look who was brought up the RG59 loss rate in response to a problem........which is all I tried to do in this thread....



snerd said:


> Not ideal, but it could be a lot worse. Any chance that other devices were using some of the bandwidth?
> 
> How many splitters are between them (and how many "legs" on each splitter)? What is the upper frequency limit on the splitters? How long is the RG59 on each of the two branches from the PoE filter to each TiVo?
> 
> ...


Again, sometimes RG59 works. If it works for someone great, but when it doesn't it is one area that needs consideration - instead of just blowing it off as not that different in this thread.


----------



## mjh (Dec 19, 2002)

Please DNFTT. That means when he says something goading you to respond, ignore him.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lessd said:


> On any new cable installation using RG59 would not be the way to go as the labor cost is so much greater than in extra cost of RG6 quad shield cable. if you already have RG59 and not having any cable problems, don't change.


What labor costs? I installed all of the low voltage wiring in my entire house myself so all I ever paid for was the cable. I was smart enough to configure a raceway between floors when the house was under construction so I could run wires to any point in my house from a central location. I can understand why anyone not possessing the DIY skills for such an undertaking would balk at doing the upgrade, but I have no such limitations. LOL, it probably took me less time and effort to rewire my house than what's gone into the flame war between the trolls.

My philosophy is that if there's any chance I'll see a benefit from the upgrade then it's worth it to me. When I switched from Comcast's analog cable to DirecTV I really had no choice but to upgrade to RG6. The only reason I upgraded to RG6 solid copper core was because it was recommended for use with the newer dishes. I seem to recall that there was an issue with the Ka band LNBs or the signal in that it was more susceptible to signal loss or something to that effect. I honestly don't recall the reason as it was about 7 or 8 years ago when I did it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

mr.unnatural said:


> My philosophy is that if there's any chance I'll see a benefit from the upgrade then it's worth it to me. When I switched from Comcast's analog cable to DirecTV I really had no choice but to upgrade to RG6. The only reason I upgraded to RG6 solid copper core was because it was recommended for use with the newer dishes. I seem to recall that there was an issue with the Ka band LNBs or the signal in that it was more susceptible to signal loss or something to that effect. I honestly don't recall the reason as it was about 7 or 8 years ago when I did it.


RF is carried on the skin of the copper conductor and so you can use copper plated steel or solid copper for RF.

However, electricity runs through the center of the wire, and power is needed for SWiMs and LNBs...not to mention copper conducts electricity better than steel, so that is why dish and Directv specs call for solid copper RG6.

Just like RG59 v RG6 above, copper plated steel MIGHT work, but it is not the spec.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

mjh said:


> Please DNFTT. That means when he says something goading you to respond, ignore him.


Ah yes. When someone is critical of Obama, others just call them a racist.

Just like when you disagree with someone you simply call them a troll.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> All one has to do is look what a small difference in db will do to the tuner in your TiVo with 2db attenuation(and the reverse).


Anyone interested in testing the veracity of this claim for themselves can perform the following experiment in their own home.

Take a decent 2-way splitter (rated 2GHz+ to avoid any bandwidth issues). Place a 75-ohm termination on one of the output ports. At any TiVo of your choice, disconnect the coax, attach that coax to the splitter, and connect a short coax from the splitter to the TiVo. This will add about 3.5dB of loss to all signals going to/from the TiVo.

Register an appropriate level of shock and dismay when your TiVo continues to function perfectly well.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> Anyone interested in testing the veracity of this claim for themselves can perform the following experiment in their own home.
> 
> Take a decent 2-way splitter (rated 2GHz+ to avoid any bandwidth issues). Place a 75-ohm termination on one of the output ports. At any TiVo of your choice, disconnect the coax, attach that coax to the splitter, and connect a short coax from the splitter to the TiVo. This will add about 3.5dB of loss to all signals going to/from the TiVo.
> 
> Register an appropriate level of shock and dismay when your TiVo continues to function perfectly well.


Tell that to all the threads where people needed to insert a splitter to attenuate their feeds to get an error free picture.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Tell that to all the threads where people needed to insert a splitter to attenuate their feeds to get an error free picture.


Perfectly OK with me. Those who needed to add a splitter to get an error free picture are having problems with a signal that is too strong. Adding a second splitter won't cause those systems to fail, because the AGC circuits in the TiVo have a lot more range than 3.5dB.

Granted there are likely to be a small fraction of systems that can't tolerate an additional 3.5dB of loss. But for the most part, your claim is another example of propagating myths.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> RF is carried on the skin of the copper conductor and so you can use copper plated steel or solid copper for RF.[


I guess to be fair I should point out cases where you make statements that are factually accurate. The "skin effect" for RF current is the reason that the RF resistance in the wire increases at a rate proportional to the square root of frequency. Copper clad steel has loss that is similar to pure copper wire as long as the copper cladding has a thickness of roughtly 5 or more "skin depths". Great for satellite signals, but it becomes a problem at lower RF frequencies. In copper, the skin depth is about 1.4 microns at 2GHz, but the skin depth increases to about 10 microns at 40MHz.



> However, electricity runs through the center of the wire, and power is needed for SWiMs and LNBs...not to mention copper conducts electricity better than steel, so that is why dish and Directv specs call for solid copper RG6.


To clarify, DC and low frequency currents flow through the entire cross-section of the wire. RF current flows only near the surface, and the amount of RF current drops off exponentially when measured further from the surface. After a depth of 5 skin-depths, the current becomes insignificant.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> Perfectly OK with me. Those who needed to add a splitter to get an error free picture are having problems with a signal that is too strong. Adding a second splitter won't cause those systems to fail, because the AGC circuits in the TiVo have a lot more range than 3.5dB.
> 
> Granted there are likely to be a small fraction of systems that can't tolerate an additional 3.5dB of loss. But for the most part, your claim is another example of propagating myths.


Sort of like claims (not looking at you) that RG59 is always fine for TiVo and MoCA for getting an error free signal.

Which brings up your claims that if RG59 is not THAT different than RG6, why are you not recommending it for DBS above as well?


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sort of like claims (not looking at you) that RG59 is always fine for TiVo and MoCA for getting an error free signal.
> 
> Which brings up your claims that if RG59 is not THAT different than RG6, why are you not recommending it for DBS above as well?


I've consistently said the RG6 is better, so why would I specifically recommend RG59 for DBS? I certainly wouldn't tell someone who has RG6 in place to rip it out and install RG59 instead, because that would just be goofy.

My goal here is simply to inject some engineering reality into the discussion. My point of contention with your claim that (paraphrased) "RG59 drops of rapidly after 1GHz" is that all the data I've seen shows that while RG59 isn't as good as RG6, it pretty much tracks in parallel up to at least 2GHz. There may be a point above 2GHz where RG59 falls off more rapidly than RG6, but I have to data to either support or refute.

There are plenty of web sites that have a lot of hand-waving arguments that villify RG59 while praising RG6. The reality, at least below 2GHz, is that RG59 isn't much worse than RG6, so those who already have it in place shouldn't worry about it unless they have specific issues that need to be resolved. Even then, loose/failed connectors and bad splitters are more likely to be the cause.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And as I have stated multiple times, if your unit is on the edge of the digital cliff, that is enough to be the difference between a satisfactory experience or not.
> 
> All one has to do is look what a small difference in db will do to the tuner in your TiVo with 2db attenuation(and the reverse).


If your on that close of the edge in a median size house you need to find out why! Most incoming connection from cable co's are almost to hot. There may be times you are far enough from their amp, but then instead of spending 1000's to rewire your house with RG6 just get an amp for 100's (and that over estimating) and your fine. An amp will increase far more then 25% if needed then upgrading to RG6.


----------



## bicycleguy (Jan 26, 2017)

Awakening this old thread. One problem I have encountered that has not been mentioned is that once a RG6 wire is inserted into a splitter or connector the female contacts may be spread such that RG59 wire no longer makes a reliable connection. For me this happened between a FIOS outside box and the MOCO splitter used to feed a Tivo Bolt and a Mini. Very hard to diagnose the intermittent that seemed to only affect the Bolt to Mini MOCO feed that didn't even pass through the bad connection. Originally worked for many years then became intermittent. Replaced the splitter.

Worked for a few more years. Then intermittent again, only this time it was the other end of the RG59 cable at the connection to the FIOS box. Again the bad connection didn't seem to effect my ethernet connection or video to the Bolt, only the MOCA TIVO to Mini. Why FIOS had used R59 I have no idea.

By the way the method that worked for me to diagnose was lucking into the fact that channel 628 (and only channel 628) on the BOLT would drop lines and mess up when the MOCO was down. As you may know when the MOCA is down it requires some button pushing to get it to start again and as far as I know there is no other way for a user to diagnose the connection. Somehow I noticed that the channel 628 reception allowed me to wiggle the cables and see the effect. Once 628 was working the MOCA would magically work. Interestingly the signal strength on the BOLT for channel 628 was about 88 when it was messed up and only about 77 when it was working! So some kind of modulating was going on in the loose connection that only affected channel 628 and the MOCA.

I think bad connections are much more likely a problem than cable losses.


----------



## Sparky1234 (May 8, 2006)

bicycleguy said:


> Awakening this old thread. One problem I have encountered that has not been mentioned is that once a RG6 wire is inserted into a splitter or connector the female contacts may be spread such that RG59 wire no longer makes a reliable connection. For me this happened between a FIOS outside box and the MOCO splitter used to feed a Tivo Bolt and a Mini. Very hard to diagnose the intermittent that seemed to only affect the Bolt to Mini MOCO feed that didn't even pass through the bad connection. Originally worked for many years then became intermittent. Replaced the splitter.
> 
> Worked for a few more years. Then intermittent again, only this time it was the other end of the RG59 cable at the connection to the FIOS box. Again the bad connection didn't seem to effect my ethernet connection or video to the Bolt, only the MOCA TIVO to Mini. Why FIOS had used R59 I have no idea.
> 
> ...


Especially for outside or attic connections exposed to the elements.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

*RG59 or RG6, does it matter?*
*Yes. *

I used RG59 from 1982 until timewarner went digital, when cable service was disrupted.
After installing RG6, as recommended by a timewarner tech.
Digital cable reception was normal.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

What is the difference between RG59 and RG6? - SewellDirect.com


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

It's simple: RG59 has more loss per foot than RG6. What else do you need to know?


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

If the question is whether to run RG59 or RG6, the answer is simple...Run RG6...

If the question is whether to use an existing RG59 run, or go through the trouble of replacing with RG6, I would definitely pause and say that "it depends". If it's a short run, I would just leverage the existing RG59 and see if you can notice any negative consequences...I don't think you will. If it's a long run, then maybe it's worth replacing the line.

All of my coax cable runs are underneath the house in a less-than-desireable crawl space... So I would definitely try to avoid replacing a perfectly good RG59 run if possible...


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Hickoryw said:


> Hooking up 3 minis to a roamio pro created MoCa network. Does it matter if the coax is RG59 or RG6 or a mix of both? Will it work on RG59? Will it be faster on RG6?


Signal loss is only one factor, what's even more important is noise immunity/rejection, and coax by nature is very good in this area, much better than twisted pair let alone patch cord. In other words, as long as you get enough signal through, the loss doesn't matter. At that point, it's all about how clean the signal is and how much noise/interference is present.

If you have RG-59 pre-installed, by all means try it out, but if you're installing new cable of course you should install RG6 (or better).

Will it work? Quite likely, but you have to see. Yes, you can mix. Could it be faster on RG6? Maybe in a marginal situation, but the TiVo does report some signal quality information and you can compare.


----------



## LYKUNO (Jan 7, 2014)

I was having pixelation issues and V52 and other errors and decided to replace all 3 RG-59 cable runs that are needed for my 2 TiVo's, with new RG-6 cable. I also replaced the short run RG-59 connections between the Tuning Adaptors and the TiVo boxes with RG-6 patch cords. I used compression fittings at each RG-6 connection, replacing the old hexagonal crimped connections that were on most of the RG-59 terminations. The RG-59 cable was probably a decade old.

That improved the signal levels and Signal-to-Noise readings on the TA diagnostics considerably, but I was still getting random pixelation and TiVo error messages. Had a Spectrum tech dispatched and he isolated the errors to the aerial cable from the pole in the backyard to the house. Interestingly, they replaced the old drop cable with an RG-11 cable, which is a much larger gauge sheath and center conductor and a much improved (and more expensive) drop cable (per the installation tech). The signal is perfect now with no errors or pixelation issues.


----------



## Teeps (Aug 16, 2001)

LYKUNO said:


> That improved the signal levels and Signal-to-Noise readings on the TA diagnostics considerably, but I was still getting random pixelation and TiVo error messages. Had a Spectrum tech dispatched and he isolated the errors to the aerial cable from the pole in the backyard to the house. Interestingly, they replaced the old drop cable with an RG-11 cable, which is a much larger gauge sheath and center conductor and a much improved (and more expensive) drop cable (per the installation tech). The signal is perfect now with no errors or pixelation issues.


Since replacing rg59 cable with rg6 the only signal problems I've experienced were on the drop from the utility pole. The squirrels around here love to chew that cable...


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

LYKUNO said:


> I was having pixelation issues and V52 and other errors and decided to replace all 3 RG-59 cable runs that are needed for my 2 TiVo's, with new RG-6 cable. I also replaced the short run RG-59 connections between the Tuning Adaptors and the TiVo boxes with RG-6 patch cords. I used compression fittings at each RG-6 connection, replacing the old hexagonal crimped connections that were on most of the RG-59 terminations. The RG-59 cable was probably a decade old.
> 
> That improved the signal levels and Signal-to-Noise readings on the TA diagnostics considerably, but I was still getting random pixelation and TiVo error messages. Had a Spectrum tech dispatched and he isolated the errors to the aerial cable from the pole in the backyard to the house. Interestingly, they replaced the old drop cable with an RG-11 cable, which is a much larger gauge sheath and center conductor and a much improved (and more expensive) drop cable (per the installation tech). The signal is perfect now with no errors or pixelation issues.


I suspect what really gave the improvements was the new connectors on the ends of the cables, IOW the same results would have been achieved if all cables had been replaced with RG59 (with new good quality connectors). For cables that meet specs (i.e., are not just defective) the attenuation differences between the different cable types are not large enough to make a significant difference over the short runs involved --- unless your signals are very marginal.


----------

