Wireless HMDI????

[Themoth]

As people who follow the home theater threads know, I have been espousing the benefits of a new technology called WHDI. It is looking like the industry giants are rallying behind it! This is awesome news.

http://www.cepro.com/article/big_ce_...r_wireless_hd/

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Very clever idea. It'll reduce costs, increase space, and so on but I'll be more concerned about interrupted signals. It'll probably have similar problems as any wireless router.

[Beta Man]

sounds like a crazy idea..... but I'm sure when electricity, or mobile phones, or microwave ovens were first created, those were "crazy" ideas too......

[[1080-p]]

Originally Posted by Themoth

As people who follow the home theater threads know, I have been espousing the benefits of a new technology called WHDI. It is looking like the industry giants are rallying behind it! This is awesome news.

http://www.cepro.com/article/big_ce_...r_wireless_hd/

yeah no more cables http://whdi.org/
http://whdi.org/Technology/

[Hirtenberger]

Gefen has been playing around with this for at least 3 years now.
Not sure how reliable their units are as they are a bit expensive.

[ManUtd]

Looks very promising but last time I checked the devices that support this standard are still very expensive.

[Rob J in WNY]

Very exciting and cool idea! I am wondering how reliable a continuous wireless stream of up to 50mbps can be maintained. Then, double that for futureproofing.

[azncarbos]

look like I will seeing at CES coming up!

[Rocky59]

Engadget reports that Asus is currently working on a wireless HDMI streamer that will supposedly pass along 1080p HD content without any lag. The drawback is that the upcoming streamer will provide only one HDMI input; combining multiple devices like the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Blue-ray player into one HDMI multimedia center won't be possible without some kind of switchbox plugged into the streamer itself.

According to the site, the ASUS BR-HD3 HDMI streamer won't cost as much as Belkin's $1,499 FlyWire HDMI streamer: Asus plans to sell its device for less than half that price... around $654. Asus also plans to put the device on the market possibly next month, followed by a more expensive three-port version in June 2010.

Engadget also added that Asus will make a "spinoff" of the BR-HD3 sometime in Q1 2010 that will wirelessly stream one source to three HDTVs. We're not sure why anyone would want to stream one signal to three sources, however this device might be useful in a commercial or industrial setting where companies want to play the same video on multiple HDTVs in different locations.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________
used cars pittsburgh pa | gmc indianapolis | lexus dealer westchester | lexus dealer ct

[ZoetMB]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I do think HT has become way too complicated and there's way too many cables coming in/out of the various components. As I've written elsewhere, most people (aside from geeks) won't put up with this and don't understand it, which is hurting the industry.

But having said that, as long as you still have to have a power cable to your monitor, I don't see what the purpose is of going wireless--it's just one more HDMI cable to be wired.

Sony's new XBR10 series use this, but it means you have a separate control box that communicates wirelessly to the monitor.

So you're "hiding" two cables: presumably from the Cable TV or satellite box to the set and a Blu-ray HDMI cable, unless you're feeding both to your AV Receiver and then feeding HDMI from the receiver to the set, which means you're saving only one cable.

But if you have to deal with the power cable anyway, what's the big deal in dealing with one or two more cables? I think the disadvantage of the extra box makes this impractical.

What would make sense is if computers and/or network boxes started outputting Wireless HDMI. But even in that case, if you have multiple inputs, you don't really want it going to the monitor anyway - you want it going to the receiver, if only for the audio. And in addition, this only makes sense if you're outputting HD video that you have stored on the network. If it's streaming from the network it would make more sense to have the receiver pick up the network signal, not the HDMI signal.

So while many sets do now have network inputs, I think they should simply build the wireless connection into the set, so one can stream to the set wirelessly. For me, that would be a lot more practical than wireless HDMI between a new box and the monitor.

So for me, the only positive so far is that the advent of the XBR10s is forcing the price down on the XBR9s, which I will finally probably buy (even though I'd rather have a Kuro.)