My experience with HDMI over a network cable

[S@njay]

I moved into a new home recently and it just so happened that with every telephone point I added it also included a Cat5 network socket.

These are all terminated to a patch panel in a store cupboard, where all my AV equipment is.

I read a lot of reviews and negative comments about the cheap Chinese HDMI over CAT extenders. But I decided to try one anyway. It was £26 and also IR functionality too.

I wanted to get a HD signal over from my Sky box into the dining room where there was a Network socket. (the rest of my house has HDMI cables routed to a HDMI matrix). Getting a HDMI cable to the dining room would have proved a little difficult.

I was also a little worried about not having a single network cable between the sender and receiver.

Long story short, it works perfectly, with two 'Breaks' in-between. It might only be 15 meters distance from source, and I am only using sound output from the TV, but I am very happy with it.

Item was:

HD 1080P 60M IR HDMI Extender RX+TX Over Signal Cat5 Cat6 CAT7 LAN Cable HDCP UK

 

[S@njay]

What sort of content have you sent over this?

Does it deal with HDCP ok?

My house is fully networked however I've held back buying HDMI extenders because of the very mixed review some get and i wasn't willing to spend £100+ on the chance they 'may' work ok, but these seem very cheap and could be worth a punt.

Currently I have only tested with the Sky box.

I have an Amazon Fire Stick, Now TV and a blue ray player which I need to test.

 

[S@njay]

Just an update with mine, works fine with Now TV and Amazon Fire Stick.

I have noticed some artifacts (i.e. some white dots speckles over the screen). But that is only on some scenes with SKY and not any other source I have tried.

As its just a dining room TV I don't mind, if it were a main TV I think I might consider a slightly more expensive model.


Overall I am still impressed, and much better than the aerial feed from Sky (and I get to use my other devices)

 

[S@njay]

Twinwire extenders are old tech now, HDBaseT is far superior but relatively expensive. For short cable runs and 1080p maximum cheap twinwire extenders will be OK. A decent set of HDBaseT extenders using a VS100 chip (supports 1080p upto 100m, 4k 60hz 4:2:0 upto 70m) will cost £350 - £400. I work for a UK company who specialise in providing HDMI over ethernet matrices/extenders and have tested a lot of equipment, the cheap stuff tends to be rubbish.

I have tried to read so many reviews on the cheap stuff. And there always seems to be an expert who states that the cheap extenders are rubbish. For less than £30 I decided to give the cheap extenders a go.

Are you able to elaborate why they are rubbish? (I have noticed some white dots around the screen, but nowhere near as bad if I kept the signal over the standard coax). I take is as well from your post, the more expensive ones should be used for Longer Runs, so that should be taken into consideration.

What if there was a comparison of extending over 20 meters, would you be able to distinguish the difference and what the difference would be (apart from cost)?

I understand for high end Home Cinemas the more expensive equipment would be better, for all the extra features you might get (Sound is a big one I guess).

But what about for the bedroom TV, or the kids room or for people who occasionally watch TV?

I feel a lot of people are pushed away from buying these products, but the only reason given is that they are rubbish compared to the most expensive ones without a justifiable explanation. And weather the cheap ones will just do for a persons needs.

 

[S@njay]

I will test tonight with the bluray player and confirm if 1080p is working without issues.