TV aerial

[ZenStalinist]

I would have to agree with you, TV coax is a waste of space generally. I got a system with a distribution amplifier, and there is so much leakage from the cable. Actually not a bad thing this time, because it means that in one of the rooms, where the cable wasn't easily accessible and I wanted a TV, the Digibox output could be picked up with good quality using a set top aerial pointing to the run of cable! But normally that wuold be a bad thing, testifying to the poor quality of aerial coax.

 

[AdamW]

Yes, I used satellite coax too. I would imagine it is also more resistant to water ingress due to being a plasticky stuff instead of hollow. I used it because it wasn't appreciably more expensive, and by running it I thought if I want to reroute my satellite of cable at a later date then the cable is already rated for it.

Ray: the difference between a £10 el cheapo aerial and a £50 one is generally one of quality. The materials and the sturdiness of the aerial are important. With a £10 one I once bought, it was no good to be fitted outdoors as the elements felt so flimsy that if a fat pigeon sat on it, it would have probably buckled. The expensive ones generally weigh noticeably more than the cheap ones!

Also whatever they use to protect the metal from corrosion may be superior in quality, which would result in a longer aerial life.

 

[raychem]

Cheers Adam,Like all the other replies I used sat coaxial and it was 100% improvement on signal quality.