

pnh102

Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty

Premium Member

join:2002-05-02

Mount Airy, MD pnh102 Premium Member Just Ahead Of Our Time... Now that most of us have run HDMI and/or component cables through our walls!



jester121

Premium Member

join:2003-08-09

Lake Zurich, IL jester121 Premium Member Re: Just Ahead Of Our Time... You obviously forgot your sarcasm tag...



I can't think of any friends, neighbors, relatives, or colleagues who even knows what HDMI is.



Camelot One

MVM

join:2001-11-21

Greenwood, IN Camelot One to pnh102

MVM to pnh102

I have an HDMI drop from the theater room (main source) closet to the living room PC, but there is no way to get a drop to the office or either bedroom. So I am VERY excited about this solution. But as it's coming right around CES 08, I hope this isn't just another "coming soon" product we'll see 3 years from now.

Dan2112

join:2001-08-24

San Jose, CA Dan2112 Member Re: Just Ahead Of Our Time... quote: The Gefen HDMI Over Coax Extender is planned for release in April 2008 and will be available to consumers online at www.gefen.com or through an authorized Gefen reseller. Only time will tell. April is not that far away. From the press release:Only time will tell. April is not that far away.



Camelot One

MVM

join:2001-11-21

Greenwood, IN Camelot One MVM Re: Just Ahead Of Our Time... said by Dan2112:



From the press release: quote: The Gefen HDMI Over Coax Extender is planned for release in April 2008 and will be available to consumers online at www.gefen.com or through an authorized Gefen reseller. Only time will tell. April is not that far away.

From the press release:Only time will tell. April is not that far away. www.dlink.com/products/?pid=547

"Coming Soon", since CES 2007. "Coming Soon", since CES 2007.



JammerMan79

Premium Member

join:2004-05-13

Prince George, BC JammerMan79 Premium Member Re: Just Ahead Of Our Time... I have the older dlink dsm320 and it's awesome.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd to pnh102

Premium Member to pnh102

i dont even use HDMI yet, though i do use component. all the same when on cable TV since it will never be 1080p for years to come.

travelguy

join:1999-09-03

Bismarck, ND travelguy Member Last Mile Solution? Maybe this technology will solve the "last mile" problem that Wimax was supposed solve. The non-FIOS telcos do Fiber To The Node (FTTN) and then UWB to the home...



Mchart

First There.

join:2004-01-21

Kaneohe, HI Mchart Member Re: Last Mile Solution? This technology can not reach anywhere near the distances needed for the 'last mile'.

Syian

join:2007-12-20

Gwinn, MI Syian Member Re : Last Mile Solution? well, that would really depend on the maximum range of UWB... and memory serving it's not all that long a range, making it a bit difficult to implement as a last mile solution.



course, i could be very very wrong. it's been known to happen. from time to time.

travelguy

join:1999-09-03

Bismarck, ND Asus RT-AC68

Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy Member Re: Re : Last Mile Solution? said by Syian:



well, that would really depend on the maximum range of UWB... and memory serving it's not all that long a range, making it a bit difficult to implement as a last mile solution.



course, i could be very very wrong. it's been known to happen. from time to time.

well, that would really depend on the maximum range of UWB... and memory serving it's not all that long a range, making it a bit difficult to implement as a last mile solution.course, i could be very very wrong. it's been known to happen. from time to time. I could have sworn I read that UWB was supposed to work over a larger area, but Intel »



The Bluetooth people look like they are going to migrate to UWB also: » Not this time.I could have sworn I read that UWB was supposed to work over a larger area, but Intel » www.intel.com/technology ··· ndex.htm says 10 meters.The Bluetooth people look like they are going to migrate to UWB also: » www.wimedia.org/en/index.asp



PolarBear03

The bear formerly known as aaron8301

Premium Member

join:2005-01-03 PolarBear03 Premium Member Re: Re : Last Mile Solution? Yes, from what I've read, UWB is about throughput, not range.



wiley

@rr.com wiley to travelguy

Anon to travelguy

Actually, Intel is partially right and partially wrong. 10 meters is just a nice round number and the range is really more a function of the data rate - but they are referring to UWB wireless in any case - not over coax.



Over coax, the range is hundreds of feet. This is independently verified in a report that was published by EETimes last month. You can access the report by independent test house "Octoscope" if interested on Pulse~LINK's home page.



bewale

Killemall

Premium Member

join:2000-08-08

Royal Oak, MI bewale Premium Member Hmmm... I see the obvious benefit of this solution for people that already have existing coax infrastructure. But, how does the bandwidth/picture quality of this compare to existing HDMI-over-dual-CAT5 solutions... or HDMI-over-fiber? e.g. for the new home builder or someone remodeling where all three options are a choice?



I'd assume one advantage of using coax is the inherent shielding the coax has vs. twisted pair.... not sure how necessary that is in a typical residential house though.



Also curious about his 4 * 35Mbps comment. I know several people playing Hidef over 100Mbps.?

n0ym

join:2004-12-21

Montgomery Village, MD n0ym Member Re: Hmmm... I see the obvious benefit of this solution for people that already have existing coax infrastructure. But, how does the bandwidth/picture quality of this compare to existing HDMI-over-dual-CAT5 solutions... or HDMI-over-fiber? e.g. for the new home builder or someone remodeling where all three options are a choice?



Assuming they can handle the bandwidth, I would imagine this comes down to the price, as either of the other solutions at this point are not cheap at all.



Also curious about his 4 * 35Mbps comment. I know several people playing Hidef over 100Mbps.?



Considering the full bandwidth of HDMI 1.3 and later is higher than 10 Gbps, I'm not sure, either (even the bandwidth of HDMI 1.2, which can handle 1080p at 60 fps, exceeds 4 Gbps).



Compressed high def video can certainly be handled by conventional fast ethernet (or gigabit ethernet). But that's not what's sent on HDMI. Unless they're compressing the signal on the fly? In which case, I'd think they would run into trouble with the encryption, unless the compression is somehow lossless... Assuming they can handle the bandwidth, I would imagine this comes down to the price, as either of the other solutions at this point are not cheap at all.Considering the full bandwidth of HDMI 1.3 and later is higher than 10 Gbps, I'm not sure, either (even the bandwidth of HDMI 1.2, which can handle 1080p at 60 fps, exceeds 4 Gbps).high def video can certainly be handled by conventional fast ethernet (or gigabit ethernet). But that's not what's sent on HDMI. Unless they're compressing the signal on the fly? In which case, I'd think they would run into trouble with the encryption, unless the compression is somehow lossless...

beaups

join:2003-08-11

Hilliard, OH beaups Member Re: Hmmm... my question exactly. uncompressed video, which HDMI is carrying, could not be run on the bandwidth of this product. So there is obviously some recompression happening which, in my opinion, destroys the product. I don't see any way it could be lossless considering we are talking around 50:1 compression

n0ym

join:2004-12-21

Montgomery Village, MD n0ym Member Ah, OK... Answering myself...

I'm not sure either why you'd need 4 times the bandwidth for pause/rewind, etc. My understanding is that streaming compressed high-def video requires anywhere up to about 35-40 Mbps (can be handled by 100 Mbps ethernet), and software packages like MythTV can do pause, etc. I've never heard anything about multiplying the bandwidth for such functions, although I could see some sort of frontend-handled fast-forward/rewind seek function requiring higher streaming bandwidth.



I suppose it all depends upon how the function is implemented.



wruckman

Ruckman.net

join:2007-10-25

Northwood, OH wruckman Member Nice Most people have coax already in their walls so this should be perfect for most people. Maybe you could even shove it out your home coax to a neighbor too. hehe.

neufuse

join:2006-12-06

James Creek, PA neufuse Member fiber... or we could just use fiber optic lines in our own house? seems more logical... already do it for sound systems...



GeekGirl1

Premium Member

join:2007-01-28

Morrisville, PA 56.9 63.5

4 edits GeekGirl1 Premium Member Yet Another Standard?



Cost for this product?



The cable industry already provides for sharing of TV signals over coax, called MOCA (Multimedia Over Coax). Verizon FiOS has implemented a solution with their home media DVRs. Standard Def only, but it's a cut into the market share.



==========================================================

Wireless Version:



I just took a look at the full test report from the URL in their press release: »



Look at Figure 14. The Belkin F5U302 can do 35 MBps until about 20' from the transmitter. If 1080p needs 35 Mbps, this will do just fine.



One feature not mentioned in the report is the signal acquisition process. How long to lock / re-aquire? How robust is the receiver design to multipath? There's a reason the other protocols have lower data rates and use more complex modulation techniques.

======================================================= This is a transmitter / receiver pair (with an IR remote in the opposite direction). Putting the pulsed carrier at 4 GHz should be well above anything on coax. If it's the same version as in the report (see below), there's an issue with length. Also, you're running near the maximum usable frequency for cheap coax (moding).Cost for this product?The cable industry already provides for sharing of TV signals over coax, called MOCA (Multimedia Over Coax). Verizon FiOS has implemented a solution with their home media DVRs. Standard Def only, but it's a cut into the market share.==========================================================Wireless Version:I just took a look at the full test report from the URL in their press release: » www.pulselink.net/press/ ··· 2007.htm . There's too much marketing hype. 4.1 GHz band only, BPSK pulsed carrier modulation.Look at Figure 14. The Belkin F5U302 can do 35 MBps until about 20' from the transmitter. If 1080p needs 35 Mbps, this will do just fine.One feature not mentioned in the report is the signal acquisition process. How long to lock / re-aquire? How robust is the receiver design to multipath? There's a reason the other protocols have lower data rates and use more complex modulation techniques.=======================================================

n0ym

join:2004-12-21

Montgomery Village, MD n0ym Member Re: Yet Another Standard?



As you noted, cost of the product is an issue. Gefen's other solutions are pretty pricey.



Look at Figure 14. The Belkin F5U302 can do 35 MBps until about 20' from the transmitter. If 1080p needs 35 Mbps, this will do just fine.



Compressed 1080p can be sent over 35 Mbps. HDMI's bandwidth requirements are much, much greater.



What I'm waiting for right now is a cost-effective solution for launching and receiving HDMI signals over fiber (e.g. you string your own fiber throughout the house, then buy a HDMI-to-fiber transducer for transmitting the signal and a fiber-to-HDMI transducer for receiving, all for a reasonable price



Chips for driving fiber aren't all that expensive these days, and from what I've seen even multi-mode fiber could be used to carry HDMI signals over house-length fiber (no lasers necessary). RG6/U is capable of carrying very high bandwidth signals - 3 GHz and up - but the losses increase substantially, of course. If they're putting a powerful signal on the line, it does stand to reason coax could be used (depending upon the length and the quality of the coax).As you noted, cost of the product is an issue. Gefen's other solutions are pretty pricey.Compressed 1080p can be sent over 35 Mbps. HDMI's bandwidth requirements are much, much greater.What I'm waiting for right now is a cost-effective solution for launching and receiving HDMI signals over fiber (e.g. you string your own fiber throughout the house, then buy a HDMI-to-fiber transducer for transmitting the signal and a fiber-to-HDMI transducer for receiving, all for a reasonable priceChips for driving fiber aren't all that expensive these days, and from what I've seen even multi-mode fiber could be used to carry HDMI signals over house-length fiber (no lasers necessary).



GeekGirl1

Premium Member

join:2007-01-28

Morrisville, PA 56.9 63.5

4 edits GeekGirl1 Premium Member Re: Yet Another Standard? said by n0ym What I'm waiting for right now is a cost-effective solution for launching and receiving HDMI signals over fiber (e.g. you string your own fiber throughout the house, then buy a HDMI-to-fiber transducer for transmitting the signal and a fiber-to-HDMI transducer for receiving, all for a reasonable price [/BQUOTE :



They already have one, but you need 1 Cat 5 and 4 fiber cables. $700 / box (define "reasonable" ). »



The selling point is "no new wires" . I've got cable TV (Verizon FiOS) and OTA (Over The Air) cables run. Is this thing going to interfere with my existing TV picture quality? All I need is a splitter on each end of the coax to insert / extract the signal.



Don't forget that the modulation sidelobes go well below 1 GHz. Putting the carrier at 4.1 GHz won't cut it with a 1.4 GHz modulation bandwidth. Hopefully, they've got good filtering (same for their receiver front-end). Also, it won't work through any type of cable / OTA distribution amp, so that limits the configuration.



I'd like to give this product a chance, but I'd wait until the reviews come out with real-world testing. They already have one, but you need 1 Cat 5 and 4 fiber cables. $700 / box (define "reasonable"). » www.gefen.com/kvm/produc ··· _id=2484 The selling point is. I've got cable TV (Verizon FiOS) and OTA (Over The Air) cables run. Is this thing going to interfere with my existing TV picture quality? All I need is a splitter on each end of the coax to insert / extract the signal.Don't forget that the modulation sidelobes go well below 1 GHz. Putting the carrier at 4.1 GHz won't cut it with a 1.4 GHz modulation bandwidth. Hopefully, they've got good filtering (same for their receiver front-end). Also, it won't work through any type of cable / OTA distribution amp, so that limits the configuration.I'd like to give this product a chance, but I'd wait until the reviews come out with real-world testing.

n0ym

join:2004-12-21

Montgomery Village, MD n0ym Member Re: Yet Another Standard? (define "reasonable" )



Yeah, that's kind of where I was coming from. For me, $700/box isn't reasonable, given the likely cost of components (they're not even multiplexing the signal onto a single fiber). Just need more competition, I guess.



I agree regarding the bandwidth limitations and potential interference with other signals carried on the line. Yeah, that's kind of where I was coming from. For me, $700/box isn't reasonable, given the likely cost of components (they're not even multiplexing the signal onto a single fiber). Just need more competition, I guess.I agree regarding the bandwidth limitations and potential interference with other signals carried on the line.



juicelee

Premium Member

join:2000-12-04

Hacienda Heights, CA juicelee Premium Member How about a true HD slingbox device? Instead of using this coax tech...how about someone making a device with slingbox functionality that can send full 1080p video over gigabit lan?



hdtvlvr

@comcast.net hdtvlvr Anon Re: How about a true HD slingbox device? Yeah, i've been asking myself that question since hdtv first came about. It's really bs how there is not one consumer solution to transmit any higher quality than 480p over a network (except local broadcast and the new cable card but thats not what I mean). I want hdmi in and have it go to a Gigabit network so I can watch/record HD content of any type onto my computers. Is this really to much to ask of hardware designers out there? The cheapest/closest commercial solution I found was a QAM signal generator over coax for $20,000+. Your QAM capable tv tuner card would translate it to 1080i as if it was being broadcasted by your local tv station and bam, hdtv tivo from any source you'd like. But who wants to spend $20,000+ to get hdtv from any source onto their computers? Sigh...

MOTO6809

join:2007-11-05

Springfield, MA MOTO6809 Member Perfect solution for me I have a 1 blue ray player with 2 tv's that have HDMI inputs, and 2 coax at each wall plate. The only downfall is you would have no control of Blue Ray player unless it had Blue Tooth controller like a PS3..