Being an avid AV consumer I'm a bit confused regarding the need for high cost F-Pin Coxial cabling. Here's my question - "Is it prudent and/or worth the money to use premimum F-Pin Coxial (for example - Monster Video 3/Monster Reference) in a DirecTV Satellite / DirecTV HD Satellite installation?"

Thanks inadvance for your comments.

It would depend on how long the run is. on lenghts shorter than 75' We use RG-6. That should work fine.

Longer than that may require a better quality like a solid copper pin.

"Is it prudent and/or worth

If you're talking about the connection that goes from the dish to the receiver............

No, it's not prudent. In fact, IMO it's downright ridiculous.

I'm focusing on the runs from the multi-switch to the receivers.

RG-6 quad shield with good "F" connectors is just fine. Don't be swayed by fancy packaging and gold F Connectors. Copper is actually a better conductor than is gold. The only advantage to gold plating is that it doesn't oxidize.

While I wouldn't dispute that decent quality speaker cables and interconnects can made an audible/visual difference, overly expensive RF cabling between switch and receiver is just plain silly.

Do yourself a favor. Save yourself the money and take yourself out to dinner. Or better yet, put the savings into your speaker budget.

"Don't be swayed by fancy packaging and gold F Connectors. Copper is actually a better conductor than is gold. The only advantage to gold plating is that it doesn't oxidize."
Pure silver is actually a better conductor of heat and electricity given the same surface area/volume.

Thanks to all for the info.

Cable manufacturers like Monster and their claims just make me Mad!

The DC resistance of a coaxial cable meant for RF is of very little concern. We are really interested in the impedance of the cable over the frequency range of the signal. Usually a home system with runs of less than 150' will have no problems with using dual or quad shield RG6.

One of the most important things to keep in mind working with RG6, or any coax, is to treat it well! The impedance of the coax at RF frequencies is a function of the dielectric (insulator between center conductor and shield) and the distance from center conductor to shield.

To treat the cable well, do not kink it, step on it, bend it tightly, pull on it with great force, or otherwise exert much force on it. Remember the RF impedance is a function of the distance from center to shield. If the cable is tightly bent, kinked, stepped on, the distance is changed in that area of the cable. This results in a impedance change in the cable at the damaged location, and the effect is reflections are produced, which result in some loss of transmitted signal.

I think that the most aggravating factor is the implication that you'll somehow get a better picture and sound from using their RF cables from dish to receiver.

That was a very good explanation of cable impedance, and to give Monster their due, they do address fluctuating impedance to do bends with some of their video cables.

Ask the average Radio Shack or Best Buy clerk why the cables work better and instead of getting a technical answer about skin effect, impedance, balanced vs. unbalanced, etc., you're more likely to get the standard "ummmm, because they're ummmm thicker and ummm, they've got these really good connectors on them"

I'm still a proponent of using good cables (to a point), but man, sometimes these companies and their retailers really overdue it.

Well, don't get mad at them. Business is partly solid product and partly marketing.

An entry level piece in a good manufacturer's line is a good piece of equipment. A step up in the line is often just marketing thrown in - to the end user, the extra feature, 10 watts more power, etc won't make a whit of difference. It may however increase the bottom line for the installer and make the client more comfortable.

I think the time to get mad is if something is downright cheap and lousy, and advertised as being something outstanding or revolutionary.

A good marketing company raises the awareness of end users in general and the ripple effect usually benefits everyone in business. I wonder if some of you would be selling some of your favorite brands of cable if Monster hadn't raised everyone's awareness of what better cables CAN do.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Here's partial results from my coxial conversion.

Well believe it or not after installing Monster Video 3 Coxial from the wall point to the power center and on to the satelliter receiver resulted in brighter, better defined color.

On the TIVO I installed Zenith Quad Insulted RG6. I haven't compared the before and after yet. I'll be back to you all afterwards.

Again, thanks for all of the great information.

This is a real hot button w/ me. I have an MS in electrical engineering and have spent most of my early career studying the effects of interconnects and metal traces for the computer industry. MONSTER CABLES ARE NOT BETTER, JUST INSANELY MORE EXPENSIVE. A lot of high end cable manufacturers know consumers are desperate to hear a "difference" in their cables. They can and do manufacture cables to alter frequency response, but this is not BETTER. It is distortion.

This is physically impossible. If you want a brighter picture, why not install cheap wire and turn up the brightness?

The only way I could see this happening is if the existing cables from wall to receiver were damaged. I would like to see you test the Monster Cable against patch cables made from the RG6 you have. My guess is that if you can't look and see which cable is in place (blind test) that you'll be unable to tell the monster from the Zenith Quad Shield RG6. (Also, to be fair... make sure the lengths of the cables are approximately equal.)


Just for clarity sake, the Zenith RG6 you bought is Quad Shield. A Cable with Quad Insulation would just be overly stiff and bulky; not desireable qualities in a cable. The Quad Shield is usually two layers of foil, and 2 layers of braided shield. The extra shield results in slightly better frequency response.

Probably the reason why the picture got better is because the connections within the cable (connectors) were better with the new cable. Typically, you should assume .5 db signal loss at each connector. Therefore, the best case scenario would have been 4 db (8 connectors, 2 at each connection point) of loss. However, you probably had more than 4 db loss with the old cable. This improvement would happen with any well made cable.

My.02 cents