or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Is physical hardwiring(CAT5e/COAX/etc) outdated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is physical hardwiring(CAT5e/COAX/etc) outdated? - Page 3

post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtz9 View Post

......................
Wait, this thing?

http://www.provantage.com/apc-surta1500xl~7AMPT02H.htm

You run ~$10,000 worth of UPSes at your house?

actually, wait, that's just the UPSes... the extended batterys seem to be another $345 each-
http://www.provantage.com/apc-sybt2~7AMPU031.htm

If those aren't the ones you run please post links of the ones you do, I'm pretty curious about your setup... (and how it wouldn't be tremendously cheaper at that point to just have a whole-house standby generator setup)


regardless though, I'd submit the -typical- person has about 20 minutes of UPS power on average, so they wouldn't really care how easily they could stream video on UPS power.

My older ones that were cream colored have the 1500Xl name. But they were around $250 for the main unit and the extended runtime battery when bought together saving me around $100. But that was also years ago.

The last two I bought were last year. It is a newer model that is all black. Here are the amazon links.

http://www.amazon.com/APC-BR1500G-BA...=3RAJV1OT3B4BE

http://www.amazon.com/APC-BR24BPG-Ba...d_bxgy_e_img_b

I paid less than the Amazon prices though. I don't remember whoI purchased them through but the prices were less and they had free shipping. I think one was from eBAy.
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by qz3fwd View Post

Well, a 14,000 square foot house will likely have multiple tv's and multiple bedroom's / offices and therefore multiple simultaneous streams potentially going. So 100 mbit will not necessarily suffice since bandwidth is shared.

Image the parents watching a BD in the master bedroom along with 2 children each watching in their own rooms. So thats potentially 3 x BD bitrate, or to simplify the math 3 x 50 mbit = 150 mbit. Imagine the quality of service when each experiences stutters / pauses due to lack of bandwidth. Then you also have to add in internet useage, p2p, streaming video, and all sorts of other use cases.

Go ahead and run 100 mbit ethernet.

Although it makes no sense in this day and age to use a 100 mb backbone, it isn't really true that you share bandwidth. The only device on a switched network that 'shares' it's bandwidth is the server.
post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

Although it makes no sense in this day and age to use a 100 mb backbone, it isn't really true that you share bandwidth. The only device on a switched network that 'shares' it's bandwidth is the server.

That depends on the exact configuration of your wiring... it's not uncommon to use a trunk line to link a switch on the opposite end of the house to a main router, instead of an ideal star topology where all lines terminate in one master switch (which is often only feasible in new construction or massive retrofits), then multiple rooms/devices connected to the remote switch will indeed fight for bandwidth over that trunk line.

In all cases, of course, the server (and internet connection) shares it's bandwidth (and drive read capability, if multiple streams are being pulled) to all devices pulling on it.
post #64 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post

That depends on the exact configuration of your wiring... it's not uncommon to use a trunk line to link a switch on the opposite end of the house to a main router, instead of an ideal star topology where all lines terminate in one master switch (which is often only feasible in new construction or massive retrofits), then multiple rooms/devices connected to the remote switch will indeed fight for bandwidth over that trunk line.

In all cases, of course, the server (and internet connection) shares it's bandwidth (and drive read capability, if multiple streams are being pulled) to all devices pulling on it.

Agreed, but I'm assuming that for this specific 14K ft house it's new build.
I disagree with the "he's a millionaire so wire for 10gb" attitude. Currently you can run multiple BD streams on a gigabit network. Even proposed ultra-high def content will run on gigabit. There is nothing on the horizon that will need 10 gb to a display device. Wiring the house for 6a would add far more than several hundred dollars to the cost. The cable alone is 4-5x the cost and installation is more expensive.
Regardless, the most important issues would be: centralized location for data hub, conditioning the data hub with it's own AC zone, having it be of reasonable size, good structured wiring. Consideration of automation for lighting, HVAC, security, and communications. A conduit to the HT if it's distant from the data hub and one to the office would be reasonable.
post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

Agreed, but I'm assuming that for this specific 14K ft house it's new build.
I disagree with the "he's a millionaire so wire for 10gb" attitude. Currently you can run multiple BD streams on a gigabit network. Even proposed ultra-high def content will run on gigabit. There is nothing on the horizon that will need 10 gb to a display device. Wiring the house for 6a would add far more than several hundred dollars to the cost. The cable alone is 4-5x the cost and installation is more expensive.

1Gb is fine for todays video, absolutely.

But proposed ultra-high def? not so much.

http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fp...ital+Cinema+4K

That's the bitrate calculator on a 4k video at 24fps. 3.82 Gbps bitrate. (or 3.6 Gbps depending on your unit standard)

Even switching to lower quality, high compression, 4:2:0 video, it's still 1.91 Gbps.
http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fp...uv420&depth=12

Good luck streaming that over a 1Gb network.
post #66 of 88
I just went and looked up what a 14,000 sqft home looks like. If the person has that kind of money, they can pay someone professionally to do all of the work, vs. having some "friend" do it for them.
post #67 of 88
I agree wired is the only way to go when streaming media. That being said I would take a commercial 100Mbps switch over a home gigabit switch any day of the week as far as performance goes.
post #68 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtz9 View Post

1Gb is fine for todays video, absolutely.

But proposed ultra-high def? not so much.

http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fp...ital+Cinema+4K

That's the bitrate calculator on a 4k video at 24fps. 3.82 Gbps bitrate. (or 3.6 Gbps depending on your unit standard)

Even switching to lower quality, high compression, 4:2:0 video, it's still 1.91 Gbps.
http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fp...uv420&depth=12

Good luck streaming that over a 1Gb network.

Well I don't see streaming these rates anytime in the near future. What equipment will handle this? Nothing on the market today that is in the realm of home theater. I do agree that he should wire for cat6 as a future proof measure but using it is a long ways off.
post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FX4 View Post

Well I don't see streaming these rates anytime in the near future. What equipment will handle this? Nothing on the market today that is in the realm of home theater. I do agree that he should wire for cat6 as a future proof measure but using it is a long ways off.

Agreed, not to mention 4K content available to home theaters is likely even farther away than the networking gear that can handle it.

Cat 6 is plenty. Cat 6a if you want a little additional future-proofing, but Cat 6 is likely fine for the foreseeable future.

Anyway you shake it, outside of really modest homes with really modest needs, wireless is not going to cut it for whole house distribution.
post #70 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post

Agreed, not to mention 4K content available to home theaters is likely even farther away than the networking gear that can handle it.

Cat 6 is plenty. Cat 6a if you want a little additional future-proofing, but Cat 6 is likely fine for the foreseeable future.

Anyway you shake it, outside of really modest homes with really modest needs, wireless is not going to cut it for whole house distribution.

It will cut it for portable devices, hand held devices, and those devices being used for control of certain elements. Only device we use for any kind of streaming over WiFi is our Roku, when we use it in our Master Bedroom. That is only because I am too lazy to pull another Cat-5e run to that room.
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

It will cut it for portable devices, hand held devices, and those devices being used for control of certain elements. Only device we use for any kind of streaming over WiFi is our Roku, when we use it in our Master Bedroom. That is only because I am too lazy to pull another Cat-5e run to that room.

That's hardly what I would consider whole house distribution, rather, that clearly falls under the "modest needs" heading I mentioned.

Wireless CAN, if implemented correctly in a house that allows decent throughput, support ONE uncompressed BR stream (note that this is not what you're getting with hand held devices, but may be what you're getting with your ONE Roku). It's not very likely going to handle more than one, which would be a strong possibility in a whole house setup.
post #72 of 88
It would work in theory if you set up enough AP's to allow proper distribution, but who does that in a normal setup.
post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

It would work in theory if you set up enough AP's to allow proper distribution, but who does that in a normal setup.

Even in a corporate setup, it would be a rare thing. For instance, bedrooms in residential houses are often back-to-back, and one common scenario would be two people watching BRs late at night, in their bedroom. Who is realistically going to have a dedicated AP per room (and hopefully on a different channel!) to allow this? On opposite sides of a large house, sure, but when the rooms are super close like that? Even in corporate installs, it would be rare to have one AP for each adjacent room, which is what you'd need to stream full bitrate BRs to two adjacent rooms. More likely, when such a need is determined, instructions on using hard lines would be issued.

Theoretical discussions are fun, don't get me wrong, I enjoy pondering ways that I could get it done, but it's more realistic (and probably cheaper, and definitely more reliable!) to simply recommend running CAT 6 instead of installing the seriously expensive hardware that would be required to have anything truly reliable and usable in such a scenario.
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtz9 View Post

1Gb is fine for todays video, absolutely.

But proposed ultra-high def? not so much.

http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fp...ital+Cinema+4K

That's the bitrate calculator on a 4k video at 24fps. 3.82 Gbps bitrate. (or 3.6 Gbps depending on your unit standard)

Even switching to lower quality, high compression, 4:2:0 video, it's still 1.91 Gbps.
http://web.forret.com/tools/video_fp...uv420&depth=12

Good luck streaming that over a 1Gb network.

I'm not an expert on UHD, but the uncompressed data assumption is just not realistic. The prototype Japanese system required 300-600 Mb. Additionally, the only display device that would require 4000K would be a HT with a fairly large screen. Your average 60" flat panel will not benefit from UHD.

CAT 6 is plenty for a home. Running conduit from the data closet to the one or two rooms that might one day need a 10 Gb connect would more than insure compatibility for the future, but might be a waste of money. Running shielded CAT 6e would be a waste of money.
post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post

Even in a corporate setup, it would be a rare thing. For instance, bedrooms in residential houses are often back-to-back, and one common scenario would be two people watching BRs late at night, in their bedroom. Who is realistically going to have a dedicated AP per room (and hopefully on a different channel!) to allow this? On opposite sides of a large house, sure, but when the rooms are super close like that? Even in corporate installs, it would be rare to have one AP for each adjacent room, which is what you'd need to stream full bitrate BRs to two adjacent rooms. More likely, when such a need is determined, instructions on using hard lines would be issued.

Theoretical discussions are fun, don't get me wrong, I enjoy pondering ways that I could get it done, but it's more realistic (and probably cheaper, and definitely more reliable!) to simply recommend running CAT 6 instead of installing the seriously expensive hardware that would be required to have anything truly reliable and usable in such a scenario.

I have four APs in my 1350ft condo. If I had a three level house I would have around a dozen APs. At work we set up a bunch for corporate clients as well on each level. But of course not usually in each room. Sometimes there can be some in adjacent rooms if the wireless survey dictates it. Sometimes you have blockage of the signals in a certain area so you have no choice but to put the APs in adjacent rooms in that area. It doesn't happen very often but I've seen it a handful of times. But the point of the wireless survey is to ensure complete coverage, so the number of APs is dictated by the survey and the number of users that will be accessing it.
post #76 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

I have four APs in my 1350ft condo. If I had a three level house I would have around a dozen APs. At work we set up a bunch for corporate clients as well on each level. But of course not usually in each room. Sometimes there can be some in adjacent rooms if the wireless survey dictates it. Sometimes you have blockage of the signals in a certain area so you have no choice but to put the APs in adjacent rooms in that area. It doesn't happen very often but I've seen it a handful of times. But the point of the wireless survey is to ensure complete coverage, so the number of APs is dictated by the survey and the number of users that will be accessing it.

The great thing about new build is that you can design and plan. Thus, you can hard wire the most likely locations that will need data access. Hopefully, most of the rooms will then be furnished accordingly limiting the need for multiple wireless video streams.
IMO, wireless is still mandatory, but can mostly be used for WEB surfing, email, Skype, wireless remote control, music streaming and other relatively low bandwidth portable applications. Known stationary high bandwidth applications seem best served (pun intended) by wired connections.
post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

It would work in theory if you set up enough AP's to allow proper distribution, but who does that in a normal setup.

Who wants that much RF running around their home and you are talking still running a bunch of cat6 to do this.
post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampfox View Post

The great thing about new build is that you can design and plan. Thus, you can hard wire the most likely locations that will need data access. Hopefully, most of the rooms will then be furnished accordingly limiting the need for multiple wireless video streams.
IMO, wireless is still mandatory, but can mostly be used for WEB surfing, email, Skype, wireless remote control, music streaming and other relatively low bandwidth portable applications. Known stationary high bandwidth applications seem best served (pun intended) by wired connections.

The guy is building a 14k sq ft home. I would home run every room in the house. The additional cost of construction is minimal. A couple thousand dollars additional cost. Each room should be home run with, cat6, coax, and cat3 as well as alarm system wiring. Additionally I would strategically wire for APs throughout the house for things like laptops and iPads. Four or five APs should cover the house well.
post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FX4 View Post

The guy is building a 14k sq ft home. I would home run every room in the house. The additional cost of construction is minimal. A couple thousand dollars additional cost. Each room should be home run with, cat6, coax, and cat3 as well as alarm system wiring. Additionally I would strategically wire for APs throughout the house for things like laptops and iPads. Four or five APs should cover the house well.

I totally agree. Actually, I'd do two home runs to most rooms, on separate walls. I'd also wire for security cameras at the doors as well as eves. At a minimum all ground floor windows/doors should have security. The property entry point should have a camera, especially if it's gated.
I'd seriously consider some type of automation. Trying to figure out the HVAC settings and what lights are on can be a full time job in a house that size, and the energy savings could be meaningful.
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FX4 View Post

Who wants that much RF running around their home and you are talking still running a bunch of cat6 to do this.

Not anymore than already in the airwaves around you on a daily basis.
post #81 of 88
Well here is my wiring project from two months ago:


post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

Not anymore than already in the airwaves around you on a daily basis.

There are just too many problems going with a pure wireless solution. Believe me I tried. I gave up and wired everything. I have a 3500 sq ft home. Wireless now only supports mobile devices and it works well.
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtz9 View Post

100 mb is PLENTY to stream even the highest bitrate bluray around. Gigabit is way way way more bandwidth than needed.

That said, wireless today still isn't fast enough to reliably do that, wired 100mb is though.


So there's 2 things here:

802.11ac, which is the next wifi standard, and you'll see hardware available for it as early as this fall, WILL be fast enough (likely sustain throughput faster than 100mb ethernet).

So if you could wait that long wifi would be fine for that purpose.

As long as you're not streaming to 5 different rooms at the same time or something... in which case you're still better off being wired for gigabit.


The second thing though... is not what's fine for today, but what's fine for tomorrow. or tomorrow 5 years from now. Or 10.

When whatever replaces BR comes along 100mb wired or not won't be fast enough....hell, GIGABIT won't be fast enough... you'll need 10GB networks to stream uncompressed 4k video for example.

So go wired. And Cat 6a.

100Mb is fine... unless you plan on fast forwarding or rewinding. Most playback devices can't cache the entire video file so FF and Rew require significantly quicker access to the server.

Agreed on the rest though, Cat 6 at a minimum. It likely that 10G will be possible over Cat 6 for short distances. But Cat 6a would be insurance. Personally, I opted for Cat 6.
post #84 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FX4 View Post


There are just too many problems going with a pure wireless solution. Believe me I tried. I gave up and wired everything. I have a 3500 sq ft home. Wireless now only supports mobile devices and it works well.

That is why I use a mix of wired and wireless. Handhelds and stuff like tablets and netbooks/laptos on WiFi, and my 3m-50 thermostat is on wifi.
post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

I have four APs in my 1350ft condo. If I had a three level house I would have around a dozen APs. At work we set up a bunch for corporate clients as well on each level. But of course not usually in each room. Sometimes there can be some in adjacent rooms if the wireless survey dictates it. Sometimes you have blockage of the signals in a certain area so you have no choice but to put the APs in adjacent rooms in that area. It doesn't happen very often but I've seen it a handful of times. But the point of the wireless survey is to ensure complete coverage, so the number of APs is dictated by the survey and the number of users that will be accessing it.

4 APs in a 1350 sq ft space is HIGHLY unusual outside of a very specialized corporate environment. And it's still nowhere near as good as wired.

Clearly, you're doing it right, as far as your wireless needs. But that doesn't mean wireless is as capable as wired. Given a choice, wired is the way to go for all but portable devices. The OP (who seems to have long since abandoned this thread LOL) should definitely tell his friend to go with CAT 6 or CAT 6a (in addition to whatever wireless gear he needs for portable devices) and get on with life...
post #86 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalani View Post

4 APs in a 1350 sq ft space is HIGHLY unusual outside of a very specialized corporate environment. And it's still nowhere near as good as wired.

Clearly, you're doing it right, as far as your wireless needs. But that doesn't mean wireless is as capable as wired. Given a choice, wired is the way to go for all but portable devices. The OP (who seems to have long since abandoned this thread LOL) should definitely tell his friend to go with CAT 6 or CAT 6a (in addition to whatever wireless gear he needs for portable devices) and get on with life...

My backbone is gigabit, but there is no way my four APs could handle all my devices. (I used to have around seventy devices on my network but now I'm down to the low sixties). I use my wireless for my IP cameras as well as my portable devices. But I can use the wireless for a few 100BT devices and get identical speed when connected to my wired network. But that will typically be a temporary setup.

Although I am looking forward to the faster wireless protocols coming out soon to see how fast they actually are.
post #87 of 88
Holy cow man, I thought I was heavy at 47 devices.
post #88 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by FX4 View Post

Holy cow man, I thought I was heavy at 47 devices.

But, it depends on if they are all doing something at the same time, that would potentially saturate the network outbound of the WAN port, that can bring it down. This is where QOS works wonders. I have a total of 21 devices registered on my network, and as of now, currently there are 13 actually on it, with 4 that are not powered up right now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Is physical hardwiring(CAT5e/COAX/etc) outdated?