HDMI over Coax

[Alexanderblue]

Hi all. We're about to finally upgrade to a flat screen television (and a new HDMI capable receiver) and I'm looking at HDMI to coaxial converters to run between my receiver and TV.

Has anyone had any luck with this? Warnings, etc? I'm specifically looking at this HDTV-S2122 (can't link to it because I'm new to the forum, but I've so far only seen it on the HDTVSupply site.)

Thanks.

 

[jayn_j]

Something like this??
For only $16.24 each when QTY 50+ purchased - HDMI Over CAT5E / CAT6 Extender Wall Plate w/ LED Indicator (Pair) - Single Port (1P) - White | HDMI Wall Plates
If that isn't it, look around the monoprice site. They have a lot of this sort of stuff.

Do you really need this? I have found that reasonable HDMI cables will work to about 35'

Oops. My bad. That is a cat-5/6 solution. You need HDMI over ethernet.

 

[harshness]

The OP was asking about RG-6, not CAT5e.

I don't expect that anyone around here has used such a configuration as it costs ten times as much as twisted pair solutions. If the OP is committed to the IR capability, Monoprice offers CAT5e HDMI wall plates that relay IR signals.

The set the OP found is far and away the least expensive I've seen that uses RG-6.

 

[jayn_j]

I had already retracted and apologized. Still, I am wondering why the OP is looking at this. I am thinking perhaps it is because he already has the coax in the wall and doesn't want to open it up. It might be better to consider some of the new wireless HDMI options.

 

[diogen]

...I'm looking at HDMI to coaxial converters to run between my receiver and TV.

Why would you run coax if both support HDMI?

Diogen.

EDIT:
Maybe you are talking about the "receiver" as a satellite/cable box?
In this case, get it replaced with one having HDMI.
It will be cheaper than getting the HDTV-S2122.

 

[mike123abc]

I looked for an HDMI over coax solution and decided there was not a cheap solution out there and decided I would have to use a cat 6 pair. I had a component feed (YUV) over 3 coax with 5.1 over coax to a TV, I wanted to change to one coax with HDMI. It looks like it takes about $350+...

My TV was in another room 75' away (not to mention on a different floor).

 

[Stargazer]

I'd go the HDMI over ethernet if I were you. Much cheaper and you would have some extra wires for other things since you need two ethernet wires to do it seeing that there would be some leftover in the second ethernet wire.

 

[John Kotches]

I'd go the HDMI over ethernet if I were you. Much cheaper and you would have some extra wires for other things since you need two ethernet wires to do it seeing that there would be some leftover in the second ethernet wire.

nothing personal, you just happened on a pet peeve of mine.

Category cabling (cat 5/5e/6/6a) is not always Ethernet. yes they is the typical use. in this case it's a low noise carrier for r/g/b and ddc across the four wire pairs.

i use cat5 to send some xlr signals in my theater.

check monoprice for much more reasonably priced cat5e/6 hdmi extenders.



Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk

 

[Stargazer]

I found the cheapest HDMI extenders on ebay. I bought one for around $30 earlier this year and they work fine. If you have a longer distance then you can power it. It takes two ethernet wires to do the job.

 

[harshness]

i use cat5 to send some xlr signals in my theater.

I don't think you'll convince anyone that CAT5 is the appropriate tool for that job. Even STP cable doesn't isolate triplets of cable. Using XLR is putting a lot of extra money and taking up a lot of real estate.

 

[harshness]

I found the cheapest HDMI extenders on ebay. I bought one for around $30 earlier this year and they work fine. If you have a longer distance then you can power it. It takes two ethernet wires to do the job.

Extenders must be acquired in pairs and you could have done much better than $30.

 

[John Kotches]

I don't think you'll convince anyone that CAT5 is the appropriate tool for that job. Even STP cable doesn't isolate triplets of cable. Using XLR is putting a lot of extra money and taking up a lot of real estate.

so without knowing anything about my setup you're convinced the tools aren't appropriate and that xlr takes up a lot of extra real estate?

you have mad skillz that are to die for then!



Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk

 

[Stargazer]

Extenders must be acquired in pairs and you could have done much better than $30.

I meant that I bought a pair for around $30 total. It came with a power supply as well for longer wire runs.

 

[harshness]

so without knowing anything about my setup you're convinced the tools aren't appropriate and that xlr takes up a lot of extra real estate?

It is pretty safe to assume that most surround capable gear uses unbalanced inputs and outputs (we know your satellite receiver(s) does/do). XLR is, by definition, is a balanced configuration (or your largely forfeiting any benefit of using XLR). This begs for a balun (or DI) at each unbalanced end. All of this adds significant expense and takes up quite a bit more cubes than a conventional RCA terminated cable.

If you're not using baluns, you've got an impedance mismatch as well as forfeiture of XLR's desirable properties (long runs and high resistance to interference).

 

[John Kotches]

Harshness:

I'm not going to get into a "my gear is bigger than your gear" type contest as that wouldn't serve any purpose. My analog I/O is all balanced and this includes the subwoofers. I don't have any sources with an analog output in use so that never comes into play. The cable runs for the front monoblocks and subwoofers are about 45 feet and I wouldn't want to to run that on a single-ended cable. I'll freely admit I don't use something in the category of "most surround capable gear" nor do I have any analog sources in my primary system. While the TOSLink connection is a single-ended solution it isn't an analog signal which is what we're discussing.

I'm guessing you missed my earlier point buried in sarcasm, which was you have no knowledge of my system and based your reply on assumptions which are faulty.

 

[jayn_j]

I try to avoid analog source connections as well, but I do still have a laserdisc player in the HT system. Too many discs, and although I am slowly replacing them, there are some discs that have never been released in newer formats.

Yes, the quality is seriously poor, but it seems to be the only way to get that material on the screen.

BTW, I am not trying to dump on John or harshness here. Just throwing in that sometimes the choices are dictated by something other than having the absolute best signal path.

 

[John Kotches]

jayn:

i (thankfully) never got much into laser disc. So I don't have that legacy to deal with. i did have a lot of hd-dvd that i have since ripped to a NAS for streaming to various players.



Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk

 

[jayn_j]

Yeah, I bought a BluRay/HD-DVD combo drive and have just started the process of ripping everything onto a server. It's going to take awhile, and I probably never will capture the laserdisc stuff. Just not worth it.

 

[John Kotches]

jaynj:

slysoft works very well for this.

i ripped all my hd-dvd media to bluray folder structures with only a few titles giving me issues.

the Bourne series and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are the ones i recall off the top of my head.

i may at some point use imgburn to convert the folder structures to an iso inside, but that isn't close to an urgent matter.



Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

I'm guessing you missed my earlier point buried in sarcasm, which was you have no knowledge of my system and based your reply on assumptions which are faulty.

My point remains. You could do what you're doing without XLR and you probably wouldn't perceive much, if any difference for the cubic inches, complexity and money invested. See more at "conspicuous consumption".