AVS Forum banner

What is having wireless HDMI built into a display device worth to you?

  • I would not mind if it added $10 - $100 to the cost.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would not mind if it added $100 - $200 to the cost.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would not mind if it added $200 - $300 to the cost.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would not mind if it added $300 - $500 to the cost.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No Thanks - Keep costs down. I could use a standalone product.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Forum Notification System
Joined
·
184 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In this fast changing world of HDMI and Wireless devices, it seemed likely that Wireless HDMI would happen at some point, and of course, it did. The question we pose to AVSForum members is... What is having wireless HDMI built into a display device worth to you? Or is it worth it at all, seeing their are standalone options?


Now seeing this is AVSForum, for the purpose of this poll, we will set the Wireless HDMI specs to be...


Full Uncompressed 1080P (of course)

60 feet line-of-site. (Based on the freq used, walls are not a good thing.)

The display with the built in receiver, must come with the transmitter.

The Transmitter must have an HDMI pass though. (1 in and 1 or 2 outs.)

No perceivable latency (Considering video games)


As this surely would add to the cost of the display, when it comes down to having wireless HDMI built into a projector or flat panel, what's it worth to you, if anything, if a manufacturer may choose to add it.


Thanks!


(This poll will close on 12-13-10 at 07:34 PM - Thread will remain open.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,672 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 /forum/post/19560152


For all those that said no thanks, think how much easier it would be to add a projector to a room.

You are correct to a certain point. You still need power........Where's Tesla when you need him
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Sounds like just another thing to go wrong within a system component if you ask me. It seems to me that wireless HDMI shouldn't be added to existing components but should be a component unto itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
If it works better than wired HDMI, I'm all for it. Otherwise, they can keep it, and come up with a standard that actually works with all source/sink devices..


I hate HDMI, it's the bane of HTPCs everywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Back in the day I opted for a TV and a VCR. Not together...If one goes they all go. Anyway, with everything in the TV it is just more to break. But wireless HDMI is a good idea as the "projector" or a video sender like the A/V ones they have now.


I have a feeling we're all gonna get it like it or not...And in time it will be standard...with little noticeable added cost. Just like surround sound is now on a PC. It used to cost big bucks to add a card for it.
 

·
Bass and Hi-Fi Enthusiast
Joined
·
3,490 Posts
The benefit is not worth more than $10. It takes me 10 to 15 minutes to hide a wire, my time is not worth less than $1 a minute
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,519 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjg100 /forum/post/19560152


For all those that said no thanks, think how much easier it would be to add a projector to a room.

Sorry, but long HDMI cables aren't that expensive....


I, like others here, would prefer my TV to do the bare minimum possible. I have not issues with proper connection via hardwiring.


For those who said yes, at any of the prices, have you ever tried streaming stuff reliably over a WiFi connection? I gave up and hardwired the PS3 to my PC when it just kept dropping out and the wife started moaning.


Much easier....


Seggers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,199 Posts
I put down Yes for $100 value.....


Thinking long term here, 3-4 years out, which is long term in CE world.


Having robust wireless HDMI would open up PJ's for many more basements/entertainment areas.


Power for a PJ can be tapped into mostly any circuit - lets not get overly anal about the whole power conditining thing in this thread, there are decent gang box solutions for that as well though.


HDMI hard cabled while the "best" solution, some people due to whatever reason can't run a hidden wire back to their video source, nor want a visible wire along their wall, or can't get creative and hide it behind molding/etc.

Hence bullet proof reliable wireless HDMI (1.4/next gen) would serve their needs very well.


Is the market big enough to justify its R&D?

That's another matter....


Off topic thoughts:

WHere is the whole wireless thing going?

1) We have "WiFi" dual band n, decent wireless, what's next upgrade to that? How much more bandwidth can be squeezed into the "WiFi" protocols, until having wires truly becomes obselete EXCEPT for power itself.

2) I've heard about wireless subwoofers, but not used one myself. Opens up "correct" or "optimized" placement of the subwoofer, assuming you have power source nearby. Not everybody planned multiple subwoofer outlets along their room.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
As an owner of a projector, it'd be cool. You wouldn't have to run wires. But I still think it'd be even better if you could put the source in another room. It removes noise and heat from the room. You could also use the same source in different rooms and/or multiple rooms at the same time with no splitters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
930 Posts
Just something else to go wrong... Like when they stated installing electric windows in Fords, back in the day. You had to bring the whole damn car in cause' of as small, but nagging problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
If wireless HDMI was built into my Sony DVP-CX995V DVD player, Sony BDP-CX960, and Samsung HL-R4667W tv, I wouldn't need to be spending over $2000 to obtain the same thing.


Due to a couple of recent falls, I am currently confined to a wheelchair and can no longer get into the bedroom where most of my A/V equipment is installed.


When the equipment finally arrives, my local A/V installer is going to try to use a Wyrestorm 4x2 HDMI matrix and Gefen GTV-WHDMI wireless HDMI system to allow me to watch both my Sony players from my living room.


I have already taken care of my DirecTV boxes via SWM and my Tivo boxes via wired ethernet.


I already have a Harmony 890, a Harmony 900 and a URC-MX950 RF remotes. Hopefully at least one of them will have enough range to allow me to control the Sony boxes from about 30 feet through one plaster board wall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
I am refraining from voting. I think a poll in percentage would be more appropriate. Adding $100 to the price of a 50"+ plasma is one thing. Adding $100 to a $150 player is quite another.


Second, I would like to see a poll on coax-based HDMI. Wireless is fine and dandy, but with walls and what-not, I would much rather see technology devices offering HDMI over (single-)coax. Single-coax adapters are out there, and are a bit pricey (I suspect due to lower volumes). The technology is in-place and proven. Even supports the required HDCP! I'd take HDMI-over-RG6 throughout the house over an iffy-wireless link ANY day.. Alternatively would be HDMI-over-single-CatX, but given the choice of the two, RGx is far more commonly available in pre-existing homes, making it even more useful..


cheers,

..dane
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
No thanks. Firstly, the only wireless I want in my video system is the part that receives TV broadcasts. Secondly, as others have expressed, it's one more thing to go wrong or obsolete, or otherwise bollix up the function of a perfectly good system.

Simply put, a wireless extender should no more be built into a video component than the input & output cables should be. If you want to make it standard, stuff it into the shipping carton, & let me decide whether I want to use it.
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top