Extend HDMI With Ethernet Cables Up To 330 ft

[Guest]

When i was reading this article, i thought to myself "hey i need to get a pair of these, wonder how much". Then i got to $1200...what a joke.

These should be no more then $50.

 

[zodiacfml]

I knew this is going to be expensive.

 

[clonazepam]

This is too complicated for my feeble brain to think "outside the box" and figure out when and where this is useful, and that $1200 is a great deal.

 

[tomfreak]

sometimes I wonder, why HDMI exist from the first place? Wouldnt it be nicer to just run Cat5e or wireless 801.n to transfer video/audio?

if all the AV output use Cat5e, I would have connect my TV in my living and my DVD player in my room using homeplug. Whos the idiot come out HDMI? Cat5e it is cheaper too

 

[Guest]

I'm looking in this solution at the moment. I need to feed a HDMI feed to a beamer who is hanging 50m away from the control point. It has to be easy and simple so people can just arrive and plugin their hdmi device.
The HDMI 1.3b extender devices are a lot cheaper but if you want 1.4 you'll pay at least 450€.
I think the keyword is simplicity.

 

[schmich]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]If you need 330FT cable of any kind you might want to rethink your design layout.[/citation]
330Ft is maximum meaning recommended for a guaranteed signal is shorter. Divide the number by 3 or even by 2 and it's quite normal to get infrastructures that way. Not at home but for conferences or larger complexes.

You're the one who needs to rethink.

 

[jivdis1x]

[citation][nom]tomfreak[/nom]sometimes I wonder, why HDMI exist from the first place? Wouldnt it be nicer to just run Cat5e or wireless 801.n to transfer video/audio? if all the AV output use Cat5e, I would have connect my TV in my living and my DVD player in my room using homeplug. Whos the idiot come out HDMI? Cat5e it is cheaper too[/citation]

HDMI standard has extremely high bandwidth-upper 10Gbps. The wireless N protocol is around 300Mbps at its best and Cat5e is limited to 1Gbps These adapter uses a different signal protocol during the transmission over cat5e that uses less bandwidth but converts it back to hdmi at the output. These protocol are not standard for CEA/EIA. Each of these adapter of the different manufacture may uses their own protocol. What you are suggesting is a major quality loss.

 

[ct001]

Or for 18$ you can get pretty much the same things at monoprice.

 

[clonazepam]

[citation][nom]tomfreak[/nom]sometimes I wonder, why HDMI exist from the first place? Wouldnt it be nicer to just run Cat5e or wireless 801.n to transfer video/audio? if all the AV output use Cat5e, I would have connect my TV in my living and my DVD player in my room using homeplug. Whos the idiot come out HDMI? Cat5e it is cheaper too[/citation]

HDMI was probably created as a replacement for the typical component cable that also includes L/R audio jacks. They wanted to be able to sell it saying things like "its 100% digital, so its better than component". They also liked to say well you have a digital signal from the source, to the cable, to the output, so its way better than having a digital source, converted to analog component, then back to digital at the output. They always left out that with hdmi, its still X digital format from the source, converted to Y digital format of the cable, and converted again to Z digital format of the output. They also wanted a cable that would all on its own degrade in quality over time, to ensure continued sales. I think it was also important for them to make sure the cable could only be of a certain length before quality degraded too much. Most people that have purchased a set of component cables, probably still have that same set after 10 years, and works perfectly well, even at much longer distances.

I'm no expert but this is the information I've come across over the years. All of it may well be out-dated by now as we're on hdmi 1.4. I use a mix of hdmi, component, composite, vga, and optical for various devices.

HDMI is the most convenient and that is its shining point. Nowadays, I would just prefer hdmi all around, but some of my devices lack that interface due to their age (2005 mfr'd xbox 360 for instance).

Someone more knowledgeable than I will hopefully come along and confirm or debunk my statements as I can't vouch for their accuracy, but I felt like posting today.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]I bought 100' of Cat5e for a few bucks.[/citation]
I did think about Cat5e, but Cat6 being only a small amount more it's worth the investment, after all it may hold up more when 4K video is standard for TV in a few years.

And even though the ones here are massively overpriced I can think of one well used commercial application we already know about - a sports bar! Just one cable TV box and a HDMI splitter, then pipe the game to HD TVs all over the establishment.

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]jivdis1x[/nom]HDMI standard has extremely high bandwidth-upper 10Gbps. The wireless N protocol is around 300Mbps at its best and Cat5e is limited to 1Gbps These adapter uses a different signal protocol during the transmission over cat5e that uses less bandwidth but converts it back to hdmi at the output. These protocol are not standard for CEA/EIA. Each of these adapter of the different manufacture may uses their own protocol. What you are suggesting is a major quality loss.[/citation]I cannot see how can u have loss of quality when u are transferring digital signal only, which most consumer electronic do. Cat7 are capable of 10Gbps over 100 meters, Ca6 can do 10Gbps too with a short distance.

On top of all that even Blu-ray 3D 1080p DO NOT need 10gbps bandwidth. I can stream 1080p with just 20mbps, which is no where near the limit of Cat5e or wireless N. Our TV have build-in Internet enabled now, I dont see any reason to have HDMI + LAN jack. Why not just use 1 cable.

The potential of making our HDTV A/V using IP address is big, woudlnt it be great that u can use a switch and broadcast ur Blu-ray video across several HDTV in ur home?

 

[jivdis1x]

[citation][nom]tomfreak[/nom]I cannot see how can u have loss of quality when u are transferring digital signal only, which most consumer electronic do. Cat7 are capable of 10Gbps over 100 meters, Ca6 can do 10Gbps too with a short distance. On top of all that even Blu-ray 3D 1080p DO NOT need 10gbps bandwidth. I can stream 1080p with just 20mbps, which is no where near the limit of Cat5e or wireless N. Our TV have build-in Internet enabled now, I dont see any reason to have HDMI + LAN jack. Why not just use 1 cable.The potential of making our HDTV A/V using IP address is big, woudlnt it be great that u can use a switch and broadcast ur Blu-ray video across several HDTV in ur home?[/citation]


When you are streaming a blu ray movie it goes thru a compression state and the output is not full quality. You may not able to tells the difference because of the improvement in the MPEG4 algorithm. If you have the raw blu ray movie on your PC and try streaming it. You will have problems. If the PC doesn't have a dedicated video card and at least a duo core. You misunderstanding comes from the fact that all of the streaming from online source are already been converted to fit the type of connection. I understand cat6 and 7 capabilities but can you afford the equipment that uses them? It's the same 4 pairs of copper wires just better insulation to reduce interference. It's what sending the signal and receiving it what important. The majority of consumer network router and switch don't do 10Gbps and above for a reason=cost. I noted that there is a lot of devices that has LAN w/ internet access. Consumers can watch "HD quality" programming from the internet. Like I mention early, there's also of conversion that involved high level of compression. It's not the true 1080p raw data signal. There is a lot of informations on the web to explain the difference in HDMI, and other type of video cabling but you should not confuse cat5, 6 or 7 that generally use for network data.

Furthermore, if cat5, 6 or 7 is an alternative, why doesn't video card in your pc uses it to output to the monitor? It's typically about less than 4 ft away.

 

[jivdis1x]

[citation] IThe potential of making our HDTV A/V using IP address is big, woudlnt it be great that u can use a switch and broadcast ur Blu-ray video across several HDTV in ur home?[/citation]

They do have something like that; it's called DLNA(Digital Living Network Alliance). If you buy all device(TV, blu ray, console, etc) that is DLNA certified, then you can watch anything from your server or pc. All those devices with have a network connection(wire or wireless). But it's still plays a compress form of the video files. If the files is not compress already, then the server or pc has to use it's muscle to convert it on the fly when you request at the TV. The blu ray player can't send the movie for the same reason=not strong enough. A blu ray play that is able to do so, will cost the same as a high end PC.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]If you need 330FT cable of any kind you might want to rethink your design layout.[/citation]

How do you suggest we link the networks between two locations if not by use of more than 100m fiber cable, when the addresses are kilometers apart ?

 

[TeraMedia]

I have to think that $1200 is a typo, with an extra 0 on the end.

That said, this infotisement belongs instead as part of an article on Tom's Guide that showcases the different long-range HDMI signal transport options, and portrays the pros and cons. There are at least a dozen different manufacturers of HDMI-over-CATx (some are CAT5, some are CAT5e, and I suspect some are CAT6 since the last time I looked). Rather than copy-pasting the press info page from Gefen, it would have been nice if Doug could have acquired perhaps 6 or so competing products, and charted their strengths and weaknesses. Some only pass HDMI. Others only do certain types of HDMI signals (e.g. no deep-color, no Dolby True HD, etc.). That would have been a really useful article.

This "article" had zero value for me, other than to question the reporting skills of Douglass Perry. The only real value anyone might get from it is to be made aware that such extenders exist - and the lack of additional information and single-source information makes that value suspect at best.