Wireless HDMI

[rex]

I must agree that Monster is a big rip-off company, at least as far as cables are concerned. I posted this news item because some members had expressed interest in the topic of wireless HDMI. But I have to admit that 300 bucks is very reasonable for a wireless HDMI system. That is about what most people pay for a simple HDMI switch. Knowing Monster, I have to wonder if it is going to be $300 for the transmitter, another $300 for the reciever, plus $400 for additional necessary accessories bringing the total closer to $1,000?
By using UWB (ultra-wide band) technology, it is supposed to avoid intereference with WiFi and other wireless devices. Another interesting feature is the ability to transmit on coax cable up to distances of 330 feet. That sure beats 330 ft of hdmi cable!

[rex]

The market for wireless high-definition television is in its "incubation phase", according to a new report from ABI Research, which projects that the market will increase from under 100,000 devices expected to ship this year to reach 1mn installations worldwide by 2012.

The research firm goes on to point out that there are currently three contending systems, loosely characterised as 5 GHz, 60 GHz, and ultra wideband (UWB). “5 GHz technology is better understood and more proven,” says principal analyst Steve Wilson, “but achieving the required data rates requires new approaches and more complex solutions. UWB technology has bandwidth advantages at in-room distances but drops rapidly at greater ranges. 60 GHz allows high data rates, but so far only one company is even close to a viable solution.”

Small numbers of 5 GHz and UWB devices are already shipping, while demo products of 60GHz are expected early next year. “Over the next two to three years, we’re going to see one or two of these wireless HDTV approaches emerge as the primary ones,” adds Mr. Wilson.

http://www.connected-home-news.com/content/view/713/47/