or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Built In Wireless HDMI - Whats it worth to you?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Built In Wireless HDMI - Whats it worth to you? - Page 3

post #61 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoshFrosh View Post

No no no... This integration is all a plan by TV manufacturers to get people to buy new TVs each time they come up with some new gizmo to add (streaming, Apps, wireless HDMI, etc.)...

This is by far my favorite comment on the subject.
post #62 of 91
A better way "to avoid device clutter" would be for the wireless HDMI interface to 'bolt on' to the back of the TV--to the VESA attachment (or to some similar standard connection 'as yet uninvented'). At least that way you would be able to replace/upgrade a display some few years later without the complication of "backward incompatible" wireless standards!

[And to avoid a proliferation of 'wall warts', maybe TV manufacturers could provide standardized switched/unswitched 5VDC/12VDC ports on the back of the set...?! ]
post #63 of 91
10$-100$ seems quite a huge range, and there's also no less than $10 option (besides not voting) in the poll, so I didn't submit a vote.

If it was under $25 I think it might be worth the added expense, cuz I think it could be cool that if someone had a laptop that had it, it could be cloned to the tv wirelessly. I imagine there will be a wireless HDMI receiver that could be added to existing displays/AVRs with HDMI anyway so it's not worth paying extra now for a display with it until the price comes down and then an add-on probably will be $25 like a wifi dongle.

I certainly wouldn't need it between my regularly connected components, I don't even like to use wifi - wired lan is just easier, cheaper, and more reliable - but I do have wifi enabled for when friends/family visit with laptops/whatever or if I bring home my work laptop, for which I find it convenient.
post #64 of 91
HDMI is an adventure with the connections that are not positive and the situations where the handshake becomes more of a slap. It would be nice to have a wireless solution that gets rid of the poor connectors but I can't imagine the reliability being all that great given the track record on the wired HDMI
post #65 of 91
HDMI has a new competitor for that expensive connection that some people say is buggy. The RJ45!!!:

http://www.physorg.com/news197525576.html
post #66 of 91
Why hdmi? Just use ip / wifi. Digital data is just data so why do you need a separate protocol for the display/audio? Technology is moving toward wireless ip devices such as tablets and smartphones. If I can view a video on an Ipad, via wifi I should be able to view that same video on my big screen tv. Big screen tv's are expensive enough that the manufacturers can eat the costs of IOS or Android. Put an ipod touch in every large screen tv and be done with it.
post #67 of 91
Another no vote. Considering what a nightmare wired HDMI can be, I have no confidence they'll get wireless to work properly.
post #68 of 91
hmmm.....

65 inch samsung led....

sony 3d blu ray.....

scientific atlanta cable box.....

microsoft xbox 360....

all talking to each other wirelessly and playing nice!

NOT!!!!
post #69 of 91
No thank`s . A stand alone solution would work better that way I could add it to whatever component I choose
post #70 of 91
Will this hurt wire companies like Bluejeans and Monoprice in sales and put people out of work?
post #71 of 91
I prefer to wire everything if possible. HDMI is a pain in the butt though but it's slooooowly getting better.
post #72 of 91
I voted no thanks as I don't think its a good idea at any cost. There's already enough RF bombarding our cell's DNA from cell phones, routers, cordless phones, bluetooth etc. Wireless is fine when its necessary but I don't think it is for TVs.

Wireless IR or laser technology on the other hand, even if its line of sight only, that might be something I'd pay for.
post #73 of 91
I trust cables more than wireless.
post #74 of 91
There should have been another choice: "No, we are bombarded enough with radio waves above 2 GHz, the health risks need to be understood before we expose more radiation to the cells in our bodies".

There was a recent study recently linking high densities of WiFi hotspots with tree disease in urban settings. More research needs to be done. I for one have been using a wired headset for years because I don't want to risk damaging brain cells due to radio waves from cell phones. My home is also wired for Ethernet, so no WiFi needed.
post #75 of 91
I posted without seeing Nodd's reply, I guess we are on the same page!
post #76 of 91
I just don't want wireless HDMI in my primary display. Maybe for the bedroom which would be a bugger to wire....
post #77 of 91
i posted yes to $100 for notebooks and tablets,

i want to use my ipad or tablet PC to show content on a projector while walking around my classroom
post #78 of 91
I would be interested only if it was 20 dollars or less.
post #79 of 91
Absolutely but only $100 adder to my TV. In fact, that's what I'll be doing in Jan with new 65" going on the wall and no cables dangling down. I'll be using WirelessHD solution, either RocketFish or new Vizio unit coming out. I don't want to tear up any walls or see those cables and this looks perfect. The cool thing is the wireless connection is not equivalent to a single HDMI cable but actually 10! I've seen friends unit connect their BD, notebook PC and AV Rx from 3 different Tx units with single remote control to switch between them. I'm also looking at new ASUS notebook with the wireless built in.
post #80 of 91
There are competing standards, until the industry can get its act together
and present us with one clear choice, I am not going to spend any money
on this.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/ele...y-players.html
post #81 of 91
I chose yes. The less clutter the better, although I am iffy about the picture quality, reliability, and any cancer I might get from prolonged high frequency waves. It's like when every phone manufacturer had their own proprietary cable to stick your headphones into and now most smartphones comes with the 3.5mm jack built right in. The cost of integrating it probably became negligible when everyone started doing it, and naysayers who said it would add bulk, would be another thing that breaks down, and that they don't listen to music on their phone, have conveniently had selective memory loss. I get the idea of cost reduction and modularity like when building your own PC, but most people and especially the non-tech savvy ones jump straight for the laptop or iMac or smartphone with everything already integrated nicely and it just works.

Life is short.
post #82 of 91
I wouldn't mind the option of doing so. But placing this option into every TV?(no choice) That's a big no no for me.

It seems that people are forgetting the main point in an HDTV. HD. You buy an HDTV for it's picture quality. That's it's main purpose. Some where along the lines people seem to have forgotten this. Now it's option about a bunch of crap you'll never use. Things like 3D,Apps,Camera,Widgets and how thing you can get your set are all nice but not needed. Make a an HDTV that does exactly whats's placed in it's name. Provide great HD. Think of how much cheaper as base HDTV cost vs one with all the extra nonsense added to it. Sop looking into things that your comp/cell phone can do for you. Jeez
post #83 of 91
wireless is fine as long as you're not trying to punch it through walls or floors..

for remote viewing wifi is a great method of transport though it less stable in some cases...

with media centre as a base plate it's becoming to the point that tv's may no longer need a tv tuner,, as a server filled with tv cards could handle the whole home's tv needs with transport over cat-6 lans though i still think running fibre between switches is also a good idea...

my opinion until fibre is strung everywhere iptv for the home is only practical from the home tv server..
post #84 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoshFrosh View Post

No no no. I don't want anything built into my TV (heck, not even speakers, really). Let the TV just show images that are sent to it and that's all.

If you purchase a really decent TV for a large amount of money, you may want it to last for years and not have to purchase a new TV because some unrelated built in functionality has been added or upgraded.

This integration is all a plan by TV manufacturers to get people to buy new TVs each time they come up with some new gizmo to add (streaming, Apps, wireless HDMI, etc.)

If you have a 1080p TV, you should be able to keep that until there is a significant display related technology advancement (e.g. 4K resolution video).

Computer monitors don't have wireless connectivity built in, so why should TVs? Both are usually near the AV source more often than not.

If anything needs to be wireless, it would be the projector (since it is usually kept far away from other AV equipment), but even then, why not purchase an external box?

What if the wireless HDMI functionality built into your TV breaks... what will you do? Throw out the whole TV and buy a new one? (Reminds me of those TVs back in the day with VHS players built in).

This feature is obviously something that would appeal more to the non-AV-geek crowd, not us. (And looking at the poll confirms this).

BTW, I use BriteView's AirSyncHD ($199) to achieve this functionality and it works fine. It is small enough to not be obtrusive, and since it is external, it can be repositioned for better reception/transmission (would a wireless TV have an external antenna?)

If $200 is about what this technology costs, then I think that is too much to add to the cost of a TV.

Just my 2 cents.

Bring me 4k resolution and 3d tv without glasses first...
post #85 of 91
Wireless can carry a sizable about of data but it does so slowly. By slowly I mean "high latency."

Commercial wireless offerings in the $300 to $1100 range stabilize the latency and can can retransmit data again quickly if it's corrupted or lost in flight. A good portion of our land line phone calls can go over commercial wireless - did you know that MCI stood for "Microwave Communications Incorporated?"

I personally believe we're quite a few years out from doing 1080p over wireless very effectively because (1) the HDMI spec doesn't allow for retransmitting of data (if something gets lost or corrupted over the wire then it's just dropped - it just isn't displayed) and (2) I've read that HDMI devices don't buffer content.

The buffering is the big deal. Until the device that's playing of the content is allowed to buffer the content before actually playing it I cannot see wireless working very well. I'm sure it will "work," but not like the wired version.

Remember those Sprint long distance advertisements in the 1980ies that bragged that the call quality was so good that, "you could hear a pin drop?" Try hearing a pin drop on your wireless mobile phone. Nope.
post #86 of 91
My option wasn't there. Don't really care and don't really want it regardless of how cheap it is.
post #87 of 91
I'm not a fan of wireless but if image quality didn't suffer, I'd like it for flat screens on articulating mounts. HDMI connectors don't take well to even the slightest wiggling around in the connector.

The flat screen in my living room is on a 3 axis mount. It has 4 HDMI cables, 1 RS-232 cable, 1 AV cable from the game switcher and power. The wire bundle is as big as the arm it's strapped to
post #88 of 91
I chose NO just from thinking about the fact that you will need to change equipments each time the wireless HDMI standard changes...

Look at wired HDMI, it started with (I think) HDMI 1.1, then HDMI 1.2, now it's at HDMI 1.4 and possibly soon HDMI 1.5.

With each new version you simply had to get rid of your older equipment if you want the functionalities of the new version.

Imagine setting up a rig compatible with the first version of wireless HDMI, and a year or two later there is a new version...

Nice for the MFGers... but not the end user...

My house is all wired up in CAT6 anyway, so this wireless idea isn't selling at all
post #89 of 91
I have two projector installations where it would have been great, but those are wired now and I won't need wireless in the future.
Thanks!
post #90 of 91
Yes wireless technology is always beneficial and faster as compared to old technologies. the main benefit of such devices is that they are mobile and easy to carry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › Built In Wireless HDMI - Whats it worth to you?