I note that there have been a some replies, but none seem to make much
attempt at answering your question.

THANK YOU IAN!! A thousand points for noting this.

RG6Q is used extensively in the UK cable TV industry as 'drop' cable -
ie from the taps in the street cabinet to the home. It is used to
provide a high degree of immunity from ingress of interfering signals -
especially those at the lower frequencies (in the reverse path part of
the spectrum - typically between 5 and 65MHz). RG6 is not a particularly
low-loss cable, and for long drop runs, RG11 is sometimes used.

As for the attenuation differences between RG6 and RG6Q, I've done a bit
of Googling, and I can't see anything which is immediately pointed out.
Even on this site
http://www.ehow.com/list_7605813_difference-between-rg6-rg6q.html
all it says is that "RG-6 and RG-6Q share nearly the exact same outer
dimensions and have similar flexibility. RG-6Q is slightly stiffer due
to the increased amount of inner shielding".

And another thousand points for answering the question--which was about the
cable's specs, NOT ABOUT ITS APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION.

I suspect that even if the diameter of the RG6Q dielectric is slightly
less (something which I've never really noticed) - requiring a slightly
thinner inner conductor in order to preserve the Zo - the increase of
attenuation won't be very much. However, I'm sure that a bit more
intensive Googling on RG6 physical and electrical specs will reveal the
true answer!
Ian

The question was how does RG6 compare to RG6Q, specifically whether or not
the reduced diameter of the dielectric effects its specifications.

Best to you.

Bob E wrote:
And another thousand points for answering the question--which was about the
cable's specs, NOT ABOUT ITS APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION.

Your posting appeared on usenet different from your own intention.

From your posting:

"How does this affect the performance? I'm looking at 1 GHz (HDTV use)."

That clearly is a question about appropriateness for a specific application.

You did not ask about the loss, you asked about the performance. So
that means "they may be loss, but does it affect the results". The
answer clearly is: it depends on further details, like what margin you
have on the signal.

Shouting does not help you, just face the facts.

In message , Rob
writes
Bob E wrote:
And another thousand points for answering the question--which was about the
cable's specs, NOT ABOUT ITS APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION.

Your posting appeared on usenet different from your own intention.

From your posting:

"How does this affect the performance? I'm looking at 1 GHz (HDTV use)."

That clearly is a question about appropriateness for a specific application.

You did not ask about the loss, you asked about the performance. So
that means "they may be loss, but does it affect the results". The
answer clearly is: it depends on further details, like what margin you
have on the signal.

Shouting does not help you, just face the facts.

OK, Bob E - it appears that the ball is in your court. In the interests
of peace and harmony, and to prevent confusion, please could you please
tell us exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) which RG-6 vs RG-6Q parameters you
are concerned about?
--
Ian

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

OK, Bob E - it appears that the ball is in your court. In the interests
of peace and harmony, and to prevent confusion, please could you please
tell us exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) which RG-6 vs RG-6Q parameters you
are concerned about?
Ian

OK, thanks for the discussions.

I have a VHF/UHF omnidirectional antenna with integral amplifier for TV
reception:

http://www.amazon.com/Antennacraft-5...mplified-HDTV-
Antenna/dp/B007Z7YOKS

Several broadcast towers surround me, from 40 to 50 miles:

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29&q=id%3d5b9405cba93e1 5

Terrain is pretty flat.

The antenna is currently connected to RG6 located indoors, up high in a
1-story cathedral-ceiling home. Signal reception is marginal, gauged by the
HDTV's (relative) Signal Strength display; dropouts occur regularly on some
channels.

I plan to mount the antenna outdoors on the peak of the roof. I was planning
to use RG6 quad-shield, but wanted to check whether it is truly a better
solution or not.

Cable run indoors now is about 50 ft. From the roof location this will
increase to 75 or 100, depending on the route I choose, hence my question.

Thanks.

In message , Brian
Morrison writes
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:51:51 -0700
Bob E. wrote:

75-ohm RG-6 coax: quad shield differs from "standard" RG-6 in that
the dielectric is reduced in diameter to accomodate the extra
shielding.

How does this affect the performance? I'm looking at 1 GHz (HDTV
use).

Thanks.


If the dielectric is reduced in diameter then to maintain the same Zo
for the same Er the inner conductor will have to be reduced in diameter
too. This will tend to increase the loss in the cable because of the
increased resistive losses and the dielectric loss will be higher
because the field is more concentrated in the dielectric.

What is your prime requirement? Do you need the low loss or the good
screening more?

See existing thread.
--
Ian

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---