Originally Posted by Otto Pylot
Then I would suggest, as I already have, to ask your question in the HDMI Q&A forum. They will advise you best. Maybe HDBaseT which uses CAT5e/6 cabling would be better. I still think that "HDMI over ethernet" and "Ethernet over HDMI" are the same thing. You're still using an HDMI cable/connector with ethernet wiring.
Hi Otto. I'm brand new here (at avsforum), but I'd like to suggest using the terms as follows:
"Ethernet over HDMI": Ethernet Packets (IP, UDP, and
maybe others) are sent with an HDMI cable "in the middle". This native
in modern HDMI, although the bandwidth is limited. I won't discuss it further, because the device which DigiTY pointed at is not doing this.
"HDMI over Ethernet": HDMI packet data, including it's timing requirements, is assembled into Ethernet Packets ... and sent over TCP/IP wiring (optionally changing the physicial media at various points)... then re-assembled into physical, properly timed and properly laid out HDMI wire data packets at the other end.
But, DigiTY's devices can assemble these "packets" of HDMI data into any alternative type of "packet" they choose. These are not necessarily IP routable Packets. I will go further and SWAG that they are almost certainly NOT even Ethernet-compatible use of the cables! There are fascinating warnings about "not smaller than 24AWG"... which means (possibly) that they are excluding nearly all 1000BaseT Cat7 cables, because they are running too much voltage for the 24-27AWG wires which CAT7 usually implies.
Too put in a less complicated way: They might be using Ethernet Cat6 cables
, but they are not using the cables to actually run Ethernet
. (With standard voltage and phase data signaling methods. More likely, they use the 8 wires in a somewhat unique protocol (adding more possible voltage and phase values into the overall signal, creating an instantaneous pattern which supports more "bits" than standard 1000BaseT). If I'm right, then it's extremely unlikely that these can be pushed to even higher speed. If I'm wrong, and the ARE using standard Ethernet voltage/phase signaling patterns, then they must be running at speeds WAY ABOVE 1Gbit/sec (the 1000BaseT standard speed), or they are depending on your video not really needing all the bandwidth which a 1080p signal might require. (And if that's the case, they might be dead already.... even at 1080p, you need almost 3Gb/sec of data capacity to keep up with an un-compressible HDMI signal.)
Which leads me to ask: How many of those CES-2013 displays are being connected via DisplayPort, rather than HDMI? (DisplayPort goes up to 10.8 GB/sec, it's data rate was upgraded to that value for exactly this reason - supporting "4K" Display devices).